Persistent Atmospheric and Ecosystem Impacts of Enteric Methane Emissions from Intensive Livestock Production Systems

Year : 2025 | Volume : 02 | Issue : 02 | Page : 18 38
    By

    Md. Emran Hossain,

  1. Professor, Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh

Abstract

Enteric methane emissions from intensive livestock production systems exert a significant long-lasting influence on atmospheric stability and ecosystem integrity. Recent observations confirm that global methane emissions continued to rise through the early 2020s, with total emissions exceeding 620 teragrams per year by 2024, driven by expanding ruminant production and associated feed systems. Anthropogenic sources accounted for more than 330 teragrams per year, reflecting sustained growth in agricultural and fossil fuel sectors. Enteric fermentation alone contributed an estimated 140 teragrams per year by 2023, representing a continued upward trend linked to intensification of dairy and beef operations. These escalating emissions have amplified atmospheric methane concentrations, reaching approximately 1960 parts per billion in 2025, substantially above levels recorded in previous decades. Annual methane growth rates from 2021 to 2025 remained elevated compared with early-2000s averages, indicating persistent perturbations of atmospheric composition. Methane-driven changes in hydroxyl radical abundance and consequent effects on tropospheric ozone formation illustrate disruptions to atmospheric chemical stability that extend beyond greenhouse forcing. The consequences of increasing methane burdens extend into terrestrial ecosystems. Although global soil organic carbon stocks remain substantial, localized declines of 5 to 20 percent have been documented in regions subject to intense grazing pressure, elevated manure inputs, and accelerated erosion. These losses underscore pressures on ecosystem integrity where biological processes fail to offset disturbances. Meanwhile, global land use and land cover change continue to support a net carbon dioxide sink near 1.5 to 1.7 gigatonnes per year, yet this sink has weakened in zones experiencing high warming rates, reduced precipitation, and deforestation. This review synthesises the latest quantitative evidence on the biological mechanisms of enteric methane production, the characteristics of intensive livestock systems, and the atmospheric pathways through which methane alters climatic and chemical stability. It evaluates ecosystem-level responses involving vegetation composition, nutrient cycling, hydrological balance, and biodiversity change. Feedback linking rising temperatures, shifts in feed quality, rumen microbial adaptation, and secondary greenhouse gas emissions are examined. Key measurement challenges, including uncertainties in tracer and chamber methods and data gaps in under-sampled regions, are critically assessed. Finally, mitigation strategies across nutritional, genetic, microbial, and management domains are reviewed, with emphasis on trade-offs and approaches to enhance climate resilience and environmental integrity for healthy atmosphere.

Keywords: Atmosphere, climate change, enteric methane, intensive livestock, methanogenesis, mitigation strategies

[This article belongs to International Journal of Atmosphere ]

How to cite this article:
Md. Emran Hossain. Persistent Atmospheric and Ecosystem Impacts of Enteric Methane Emissions from Intensive Livestock Production Systems. International Journal of Atmosphere. 2025; 02(02):18-38.
How to cite this URL:
Md. Emran Hossain. Persistent Atmospheric and Ecosystem Impacts of Enteric Methane Emissions from Intensive Livestock Production Systems. International Journal of Atmosphere. 2025; 02(02):18-38. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijat/article=2025/view=234890


References

1. K. Nedelkov, T. Angelova, J. Krastanov, and M. Mihaylova, “Feeding strategies to reduce methane emissions: A review,” Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2024.
2. V. Kader Esen, V. Palangi, and S. Esen, “Genetic Improvement and Nutrigenomic Management of Ruminants to Achieve Enteric Methane Mitigation: A Review,” 2022, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/methane1040025.
3. J. C. Ku-Vera et al., “Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages,” Animal, vol. 14, pp. s453–s463, 2020, doi: 10.1017/S1751731120001780.
4. D. Pitta, N. Indugu, K. Narayan, and M. Hennessy, “Symposium review: Understanding the role of the rumen microbiome in enteric methane mitigation and productivity in dairy cows,” 2022, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21466.
5. A. Hassen, N. Tesfamariam, N. Pepeta, and E. N. Tasfamariam, The Potential of Strategies Used to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions in Nutrition Studies of Ruminants: A review. preprints.org, 2024. [Online]. Available: www.preprints.org
6. A. A. Ribeiro et al., “Comparison of methods to measure enteric methane emissions from ruminants: an integrative review,” Res. Soc. Dev., vol. 9, no. 11, p. e8259118143, 2020, doi: 10.33448/rsd-v9i11.8143.
7. A. N. Hristov, A. Melgar, D. Wasson, and C. Arndt, “Symposium review: Effective nutritional strategies to mitigate enteric methane in dairy cattle,” J. Dairy Sci., vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 8543–8557, 2022, doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21398.
8. P. Lakhani, R. Kumar, J. Madan, and S. Sindhu, “Ruminant Methane Mitigation- Strategy from Bench Top to Field Condition: A Review,” Agric. Rev., vol. 44, no. Of, pp. 182–190, 2022, doi: 10.18805/ag.r-2152.
9. V. Palangi, A. Taghizadeh, S. Abachi, and M. Lackner, “Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants: A Review,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 20, p. 13229, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142013229.
10. O. Gonzalez-Recio et al., “Review: Diving into the cow hologenome to reduce methane emissions and increase sustainability,” 2023, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100780.
11. W. Badgery et al., “Reducing enteric methane of ruminants in Australian grazing systems – a review of the role for temperate legumes and herbs,” 2023, CSIRO Publishing. doi: 10.1071/CP22299.
12. M. T. Lambo, H. Ma, R. Liu, B. Dai, Y. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Review: Mechanism, effectiveness, and the prospects of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds in lowering ruminants’ enteric methane emission,” Animal, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 101134, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101134.
13. J. M. Tricarico et al., “Symposium review: Development of a funding program to support research on enteric methane mitigation from ruminants,” J. Dairy Sci., vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 8535–8542, 2022, doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21397.
14. S. Colombini et al., “Evaluation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) equations to predict enteric methane emission from lactating cows fed Mediterranean diets,” 2023, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jdsc.2022-0240.
15. M. Lawal, “Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emission in Africa as a Climate-Smart Livestock Strategy,” 2023, library.faraafrica.org. [Online]. Available: https://library.faraafrica.org/storage/2023/04/FRR-Vol-765827-843.pdf
16. M. R. Beck, L. R. Thompson, T. N. Campbell, K. A. Stackhouse-Lawson, and S. L. Archibeque, “Implied climate warming contributions of enteric methane emissions are dependent on the estimate source and accounting methodology,” Appl. Anim. Sci., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 639–647, 2022, doi: 10.15232/aas.2022-02344.
17. M. Cheng, B. McCarl, and C. Fei, “Climate Change and Livestock Production: A Literature Review,” 2022, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/atmos13010140.
18. M. Harmsen et al., “The role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts,” Clim. Change, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 1409–1425, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2.
19. T. Hammar, P. A. Hansson, and E. Röös, “Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions?,” 2022, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948.
20. E. J. Raynor et al., “Snapshot of Enteric Methane Emissions from Stocker Cattle Grazing Extensive Semiarid Rangelands,” 2024, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.001.
21. L. Mapfumo, S. M. Grobler, J. F. Mupangwa, M. M. Scholtz, and V. Muchenje, “Enteric methane output from selected herds of beef cattle raised under extensive arid rangelands,” 2018, Springer. doi: 10.1186/s13570-018-0121-9.
22. N. E. Odongo et al., “Long-term effects of feeding monensin on methane production in lactating dairy cows,” J. Dairy Sci., vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 1781–1788, 2007, doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-708.
23. I. C. Molina-Botero, M. D. Montoya-Flores, L. M. Zavala-Escalante, R. Barahona-Rosales, J. Arango, and J. C. Ku-Vera, “Effects of long-term diet supplementation with Gliricidia sepium foliage mixed with Enterolobium cyclocarpum pods on enteric methane, apparent digestibility, and rumen microbial population in crossbred heifers,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1619–1633, 2019, doi: 10.1093/jas/skz067.
24. J. Guyader, M. Doreau, D. P. Morgavi, C. Gérard, C. Loncke, and C. Martin, “Long-term effect of linseed plus nitrate fed to dairy cows on enteric methane emission and nitrate and nitrite residuals in milk,” Animal, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1173–1181, 2016, doi: 10.1017/S1751731115002852.
25. E. M. Ungerfeld, K. A. Beauchemin, and C. Muñoz, “Current Perspectives on Achieving Pronounced Enteric Methane Mitigation From Ruminant Production,” 2021, frontiersin.org. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.795200.
26. W. de Souza Filho et al., “Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: Trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 213, pp. 968–975, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.245.
27. A. Ivetić, R. Jovanović, M. Ćosić, B. Stojanović, and …, “Effects of enteric methane mitigation practise,” B. Proc. …, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://fiver.ifvcns.rs/handle/123456789/4037%0Ahttps://fiver.ifvcns.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/4037/Ivetić et al.%2C 2023. EFFECTS OF ENTERIC METHANE MITIGATION PRACTISE. Village and Agriculture%2C BH.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
28. M. Saunois et al., “Global methane budget 2000–2020,” Earth Syst. Sci. Data, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1873–1958, 2025.
29. A. R. Stavert et al., “Regional trends and drivers of the global methane budget,” Glob. Chang. Biol., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 182–200, 2022.
30. L. Zhang et al., “A 130‐year global inventory of methane emissions from livestock: Trends, patterns, and drivers,” Glob. Chang. Biol., vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 5142–5158, 2022.
31. X. Lan, K. W. Thoning, and E. J. Dlugokencky, “Trends in globally-averaged CH4, N2O, and SF6 determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory measurements. Version 2024-04,” 2024.
32. A. W. Alemu, K. H. Ominski, and E. Kebreab, “Estimation of enteric methane emissions trends (1990-2008) from Manitoba beef cattle using empirical and mechanistic models,” Can. J. Anim. Sci., vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 305–321, 2011, doi: 10.4141/cjas2010-009.
33. A. Garg, B. Kankal, and P. R. Shukla, “Methane emissions in India: Sub-regional and sectoral trends,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 45, no. 28, pp. 4922–4929, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.004.
34. A. Hardan, P. C. Garnsworthy, and M. J. Bell, “Variability in Enteric Methane Emissions among Dairy Cows during Lactation,” 2023, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani13010157.
35. M. Díaz-Céspedes, J. E. Hernández-Guevara, and C. Gómez, “Enteric methane emissions by young Brahman bulls grazing tropical pastures at different rainfall seasons in the Peruvian jungle,” Trop. Anim. Health Prod., vol. 53, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11250-021-02871-4.
36. M. Ascolani, Evaluation of Nutritional Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Beef Cattle Consuming High-Fiber Diets. search.proquest.com, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://search.proquest.com/openview/c2cf7ed9eac54733c68e76c22fbcfa3e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
37. H. J. van Lingen, J. G. Fadel, E. Kebreab, A. Bannink, J. Dijkstra, and S. van Gastelen, “Smoothing spline assessment of the accuracy of enteric hydrogen and methane production measurements from dairy cattle using various sampling schemes,” 2023, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-23207.
38. J. I. McCauley et al., “Management of Enteric Methanogenesis in Ruminants by Algal-Derived Feed Additives,” Curr. Pollut. Reports, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 188–205, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40726-020-00151-7.
39. A. Buccioni, A. Cappucci, and M. Mele, “Methane emission from enteric fermentation: Methanogenesis and fermentation,” Clim. Chang. Impact Livest. Adapt. Mitig., pp. 171–186, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_11.
40. B. Yanibada et al., “Inhibition of enteric methanogenesis in dairy cows induces changes in plasma metabolome highlighting metabolic shifts and potential markers of emission,” 2020, nature.com. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72145-w.
41. E. T. Kim et al., “Changes in microbial diversity, methanogenesis and fermentation characteristics in the rumen in response to medicinal plant extracts,” Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1289–1294, 2013, doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13072.
42. K. Starsmore, “Animal factors affecting enteric methane production in late lactation pasture based dairy cows in Ireland: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the …,” 2022, Massey University.
43. M. I. Tongwane and M. E. Moeletsi, “Emission factors and carbon emissions of methane from enteric fermentation of cattle produced under different management systems in South Africa,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 265, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121931.
44. N. M. Soren, V. Sejian, M. Terhuja, and G. Dominic, “Enteric methane emission in sheep: Process description and factors influencing production,” Sheep Prod. Adapt. to Clim. Chang., pp. 209–233, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4714-5_10.
45. J. P. Goopy, P. W. Ndung’u, A. Onyango, P. Kirui, and K. Butterbach-Bahl, “Calculation of new enteric methane emission factors for small ruminants in western Kenya highlights the heterogeneity of smallholder production systems,” 2021, CSIRO Publishing. doi: 10.1071/AN19631.
46. M. Islam, S. H. Kim, A. R. Son, S. S. Lee, and S. S. Lee, “Breed and Season-Specific Methane Conversion Factors Influence Methane Emission Factor for Enteric Methane of Dairy Steers,” 2022, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/su14127030.
47. Y. Widiawati, M. N. Rofiq, and B. Tiesnamurti, Methane emission factors for enteric fermentation in beef cattle using IPCC Tier-2 method in Indonesia, vol. 21, no. 2. cabidigitallibrary.org, 2016. doi: 10.14334/jitv.v21i2.1358.
48. A. B. Donadia, R. N. S. Torres, H. M. da Silva, S. R. Soares, A. K. Hoshide, and A. S. de Oliveira, “Factors Affecting Enteric Emission Methane and Predictive Models for Dairy Cows,” 2023, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani13111857.
49. C. J. Nelson and L. E. Moser, “Plant factors affecting forage quality,” Forage Qual. Eval. Util., pp. 115–154, 2015, doi: 10.2134/1994.foragequality.c3.
50. A. A. Feyissa, F. Senbeta, A. Tolera, D. Diriba, and K. Boonyanuwat, “Enteric methane emission factors of smallholder dairy farming systems across intensification gradients in the central highlands of Ethiopia,” 2023, Springer. doi: 10.1186/s13021-023-00242-0.
51. K. Starsmore, N. Lopez-Villalobos, L. Shalloo, M. Egan, J. Burke, and B. Lahart, “Animal factors that affect enteric methane production measured using the GreenFeed monitoring system in grazing dairy cows,” J. Dairy Sci., vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 2930–2940, 2024, doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23915.
52. M. R. Allen, J. S. Fuglestvedt, K. P. Shine, A. Reisinger, R. T. Pierrehumbert, and P. M. Forster, “New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 773–776, 2016, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2998.
53. D. Bačėninaitė, K. Džermeikaitė, and R. Antanaitis, “Global Warming and Dairy Cattle: How to Control and Reduce Methane Emission,” 2022, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani12192687.
54. M. R. Beck et al., “U.S. manure methane emissions represent a greater contributor to implied climate warming than enteric methane emissions using the global warming potential* methodology,” 2023, frontiersin.org. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1209541.
55. D. Blaustein-Rejto and C. Gambino, “Livestock Don’t Contribute 14.5% of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-vOsBhAAEiwAIWR0TV-uhtBhSFRKtzfNuMWBNs8QRYSVF6J4yWChVICvKZIFgJd7531nkhoCoXQQAvD_BwE, vol. 20, 2023.
56. T. Sakai, T. K. Chi, T. N. Van, T. Suzuki, K. Hayashi, and K. Higuchi, “Ventilated hood system for measurements of enteric methane emissions in Vietnam.,” 2016, researchgate.net. [Online]. Available: http://www.jircas.affrc.go.jp/english/publication/working/report_index.html
57. A. V. Carrazco et al., “The impact of essential oil feed supplementation on enteric gas emissions and production parameters from dairy cattle,” 2020, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/su122410347.
58. S. M. McGinn, T. K. Flesch, L. A. Harper, and K. A. Beauchemin, “An Approach for Measuring Methane Emissions from Whole Farms,” J. Environ. Qual., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2006, doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0250.
59. R. Bhatta, “Reducing enteric methane emission using plant secondary metabolites,” Clim. Chang. Impact Livest. Adapt. Mitig., pp. 273–284, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_17.
60. D. N. Kamra, N. Agarwal, and L. C. Chaudhary, “Manipulation of rumen microbial ecosystem for reducing enteric methane emission in livestock,” Clim. Chang. Impact Livest. Adapt. Mitig., pp. 255–272, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_16.
61. S. M. Staerfl, J. O. Zeitz, M. Kreuzer, and C. R. Soliva, “Methane conversion rate of bulls fattened on grass or maize silage as compared with the IPCC default values, and the long-term methane mitigation efficiency of adding acacia tannin, garlic, maca and lupine,” Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., vol. 148, pp. 111–120, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.003.
62. L. Kelly and E. Kebreab, “Recent advances in feed additives with the potential to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock,” J. Soil Water Conserv., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 111–123, 2023, doi: 10.2489/jswc.2023.00070.
63. J. M. Machado et al., “Strategies to mitigate the emission of methane in pastures: enteric methane: A review,” Aust. J. Crop Sci., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 682–690, 2022, doi: 10.21475/ajcs.22.16.06.p3457.
64. M. Eugène, K. Klumpp, and D. Sauvant, “Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants,” Grass Forage Sci., vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 196–204, 2021, doi: 10.1111/gfs.12540.
65. Y. Pan, Z. Rao, W. Yu, B. Chen, and C. Chu, “Water Vapor Condensation Triggers Simultaneous Oxidation and Hydrolysis of Organic Pollutants on Iron Mineral Surfaces.,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c03195.
66. D. A. Boadi et al., “Effect of low and high forage diet on enteric and manure pack greenhouse gas emissions from a feedlot,” Can. J. Anim. Sci., vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 445–453, 2004, doi: 10.4141/A03-079.
67. L. F. Oliveira et al., “Feed efficiency and enteric methane production of Nellore cattle in the feedlot and on pasture,” Anim. Prod. Sci., vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 886–893, 2018, doi: 10.1071/AN16303.
68. J. I. Velazco, D. J. Cottle, and R. S. Hegarty, “Methane emissions and feeding behaviour of feedlot cattle supplemented with nitrate or urea,” Anim. Prod. Sci., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1737–1740, 2014, doi: 10.1071/AN14345.
69. R. A. Silva et al., “Effects of different forms of soybean lipids on enteric methane emission, performance and meat quality of feedlot Nellore,” J. Agric. Sci., vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 427–436, 2018, doi: 10.1017/S002185961800045X.
70. A. A. G. LOBO et al., “Effect of intensive and integrated grazing systems, in seasons, on methane mitigation in Nellore.,” In: INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS & ANIMAL AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE, 8, 2022.
71. P. Dumortier et al., “Methane balance of an intensively grazed pasture and estimation of the enteric methane emissions from cattle,” Agric. For. Meteorol., vol. 232, pp. 527–535, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.010.
72. G. Flores-Coello et al., “Intensive Silvopastoral Systems Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Cattle,” 2023, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/atmos14050863.
73. G. Martínez-Marín, S. Schiavon, F. Tagliapietra, A. Cecchinato, H. Toledo-Alvarado, and G. Bittante, “Interactions among breed, farm intensiveness and cow productivity on predicted enteric methane emissions at the population level,” Ital. J. Anim. Sci., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 59–75, 2023, doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2022.2158953.
74. S. F. Kirwan, L. F. M. Tamassia, N. D. Walker, A. Karagiannis, M. Kindermann, and S. M. Waters, “Effects of dietary supplementation with 3-nitrooxypropanol on enteric methane production, rumen fermentation, and performance in young growing beef cattle offered a 50:50 forage:concentrate diet,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 102, 2024, doi: 10.1093/jas/skad399.
75. M. Schilde et al., “Dose–response effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol combined with low-and high-concentrate feed proportions in the dairy cow ration on fermentation parameters in a rumen simulation technique,” Animals, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 1784, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ani11061784.
76. G. Giagnoni, M. Johansen, P. Lund, and …, “Effect of type of silage and concentrate on eating behaviour and relation to enteric methane,” 72nd Annu. Meet. …, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/publications/effect-of-type-of-silage-and-concentrate-on-eating-behaviour-and-
77. D. W. Olijhoek et al., “Feeding up to 91% concentrate to Holstein and Jersey dairy cows: Effects on enteric methane emission, rumen fermentation and bacterial community, digestibility, production, and feeding behavior,” 2022, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21676.
78. C. P. Ferris, H. P. Jiao, S. Murray, A. Gordon, and S. Laidlaw, “Effect of dairy cow genotype and concentrate feed level on cow performance and enteric methane emissions during grazing,” Agric. Food Sci., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 130–138, 2020, doi: 10.23986/afsci.83442.
79. M. B. de Ondarza, A. N. Hristov, and J. M. Tricarico, “A global dataset of enteric methane mitigation experiments with beef cattle conducted from 1963 to 2023,” 2024, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2024.110666.
80. A. R. Moss, J. P. Jouany, and J. Newbold, “Methane production by ruminants: Its contribution to global warming,” Anim. Res., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 231–253, 2000, doi: 10.1051/animres:2000119.
81. M. B. de Ondarza, A. N. Hristov, and J. M. Tricarico, “A global dataset of enteric methane mitigation experiments with lactating and non-lactating dairy cows conducted from 1963 to 2022,” 2023, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.109459.
82. V. Sejian, I. Shekhawat, V. Ujor, T. Ezeji, J. Lakritz, and R. Lal, “Global climate change: Enteric methane reduction strategies in livestock,” Environ. Stress Amelior. Livest. Prod., vol. 9783642292, pp. 469–499, 2012, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29205-7_16.
83. A. Thorpe, “Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: The role (and control?) of methane in the climate change debate,” Clim. Change, vol. 93, no. 3–4, pp. 407–431, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9506-x.
84. P. Pragna, S. S. Chauhan, V. Sejian, B. J. Leury, and F. R. Dunshea, “Climate change and goat production: Enteric methane emission and its mitigation,” 2018, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani8120235.
85. V. Sejian and S. M. K. Naqvi, “Livestock and Climate Change: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Methane Production,” Greenh. Gases – Capturing, Util. Reduct., 2012, doi: 10.5772/32014.
86. J. Sun, G. Zhao, and M. M. Li, “Using Nutritional Strategies To Mitigate Ruminal Methane Emissions From Ruminants,” Front. Agric. Sci. Eng., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 390–402, 2023, doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2023504.
87. J. Vargas, E. Ungerfeld, C. Muñoz, and N. Dilorenzo, “Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems,” Animals, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1–13, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ani12091132.
88. Y. Dini, J. I. Gere, C. Cajarville, and V. S. Ciganda, “Using highly nutritious pastures to mitigate enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing systems in South America,” Anim. Prod. Sci., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 2329–2334, 2018, doi: 10.1071/AN16803.
89. T. Tseten, R. A. Sanjorjo, M. Kwon, and S. W. Kim, “Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminant Animals,” J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 269–277, 2022, doi: 10.4014/jmb.2202.02019.
90. K. Garrett, M. R. Beck, and P. Gregorini, “Strategic feeding management to mitigate enteric methane emissions and urinary nitrogen excretion.,” 2019, researchgate.net. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew-Beck-10/publication/334317005_Strategic_feeding_management_to_mitigate_enteric_methane_emissions_and_urinary_nitrogen_excretion/links/5d24550ca6fdcc2462ce1862/Strategic-feeding-management-to-mitigate-enteric-me
91. S. van Gastelen, J. Dijkstra, and A. Bannink, “Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep?,” 2019, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15785.
92. C. Arndt, A. N. Hristov, W. J. Price, and …, “Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions by ruminants and how they can meet the 1.5° C climate target by 2030 but not 2050,” Proc. …, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/103980/
93. J. Vargas, E. Ungerfeld, C. Muñoz, and N. Dilorenzo, “Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems,” 2022, academia.edu. doi: 10.3390/ani12091132.
94. A. Thacharodi et al., “The ruminant gut microbiome vs enteric methane emission: The essential microbes may help to mitigate the global methane crisis,” Environ. Res., vol. 261, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119661.
95. C. Arndt et al., “Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 119, no. 20, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2111294119.
96. C. Arndt et al., Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions by ruminants – a way to approach the 2.0°C target., vol. 2021. pure.sruc.ac.uk, 2021. doi: 10.31220/agrirxiv.2021.00040.
97. R. R. Lobo et al., “SF6 Tracer Technique to Estimate Methane Emission in a Dual-Flow Continuous Culture System: Test and Application,” Fermentation, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 394, 2024.
98. A. C. Boulton et al., “Applying the SF6 tracer gas methodology to measure enteric methane emissions in grazing Brahman heifers,” CSIRO Publishing, 2025.
99. S. R. O. Williams, P. J. Moate, M. C. Hannah, B. E. Ribaux, W. J. Wales, and R. J. Eckard, “Background matters with the SF6 tracer method for estimating enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: A critical evaluation of the SF6 procedure,” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., vol. 170, no. 3–4, pp. 265–276, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.013.
100. P. J. Moate et al., “Measurement of Enteric Methane Emissions by the SF6 Technique Is Not Affected by Ambient Weather Conditions,” 2021, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani11020528.
101. M. Arbre et al., “Repeatability of enteric methane determinations from cattle using either the SF6 tracer technique or the GreenFeed system,” Anim. Prod. Sci., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 238–243, 2016, doi: 10.1071/AN15512.
102. Y. Rochette, M. Eugène, M. Doreau, and …, “Determination of enteric methane emission by SF6 tracer technique: permeation tubes must be calibrated after incubation in the rumen for an accurate …,” 2012, researchgate.net. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Melynda-Hassouna/publication/315840925_ammonia_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_pig_fattening_on_slatted_floor_with_excrement_discharge_by_flat_scraping/links/5c8b61ac92851c1df941bc19/ammonia-and-greenhouse-gas-emission
103. K. R. Lassey, C. S. Pinares-Patiño, R. J. Martin, G. Molano, and A. M. S. McMillan, “Enteric methane emission rates determined by the SF6 tracer technique: Temporal patterns and averaging periods,” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., vol. 166–167, pp. 183–191, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.066.
104. C. Pinares-Patiño et al., “Extending the collection duration of breath samples for enteric methane emission estimation using the SF6 tracer technique,” 2012, mdpi.com. doi: 10.3390/ani2020275.
105. M. G. G. Chagunda and T. Yan, “Do methane measurements from a laser detector and an indirect open-circuit respiration calorimetric chamber agree sufficiently closely?,” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., vol. 165, no. 1–2, pp. 8–14, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.005.
106. G. M. Landín, E. R. Rodríguez, T. C. R. de Souza, and G. Ordaz Ochoa, “Accuracy validation of open-circuit respiration chambers for the assessment of energy metabolism and enteric methane emissions in pigs and small ruminants,” Flow Meas. Instrum., vol. 97, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2024.102564.
107. A. L. F. Hellwing, P. Lund, J. Madsen, and M. R. Weisbjerg, “Comparison of enteric methane production predicted from the CH4/CO2 ratio and measured in respiration chambers,” Adv. Anim. Biosci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 6077–6085, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-animal-biosciences/article/poster-presentations-wednesday/368985EBED95BB10307CD68888EAFAE3
108. R. Wang et al., “Technical note: Evaluation of interval between measurements and calculation method for the quantification of enteric methane emissions measured by respiration chamber,” 2019, Elsevier. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16245.
109. J. C. Ku-Vera et al., “Determination of methane yield in cattle fed tropical grasses as measured in open-circuit respiration chambers,” Agric. For. Meteorol., vol. 258, pp. 3–7, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.008.
110. A. W. Alemu, D. Vyas, G. Manafiazar, J. A. Basarab, and K. A. Beauchemin, “Enteric methane emissions from low– and high–residual feed intake beef heifers measured using greenfeed and respiration chamber techniques,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 3727–3737, 2017, doi: 10.2527/jas.2017.1501.
111. A. Jonker, G. Molano, C. Antwi, and G. C. Waghorn, “Enteric methane and carbon dioxide emissions measured using respiration chambers, the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique, and a greenfeed head-chamber system from beef heifers fed alfalfa silage at three allowances and four feeding frequencies,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 4326–4337, 2016, doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-0646.
112. Y. G. Zhao, N. E. O’Connell, and T. Yan, “Prediction of enteric methane emissions from sheep offered fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) using data measured in indirect open-circuit respiration chambers,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 2425–2435, 2016, doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-0334.
113. J. I. Arceo-Castillo et al., “Assessment of the accuracy of open-circuit respiration chambers for measuring enteric methane emissions in cattle,” 2021, scielo.org.mx. doi: 10.20937/ATM.52839.
114. A. Belanche et al., “Prediction of enteric methane emissions by sheep using an intercontinental database,” 2023, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135523.
115. C. V. Ryan et al., “Exploring definitions of daily enteric methane emission phenotypes for genetic evaluations using a population of indoor-fed multi-breed growing cattle with feed intake data,” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 102, 2024, doi: 10.1093/jas/skae034.
116. P. W. Ndung’u, P. Kirui, T. Takahashi, C. J. L. du Toit, L. Merbold, and J. P. Goopy, “Data describing cattle performance and feed characteristics to calculate enteric methane emissions in smallholder livestock systems in Bomet County, Kenya,” 2021, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107673.
117. R. Liu et al., “Predicting enteric methane emission in lactating Holsteins based on reference methane data collected by the GreenFeed system,” 2022, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100469.
118. G. F. S. Congio et al., “Prediction of enteric methane production and yield in sheep using a Latin America and Caribbean database,” Livest. Sci., vol. 264, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.105036.
119. E. M. Ross, B. J. Hayes, D. Tucker, J. Bond, S. E. Denman, and V. H. Oddy, “Genomic predictions for enteric methane production are improved by metabolome and microbiome data in sheep (Ovis aries),” J. Anim. Sci., vol. 98, no. 10, 2020, doi: 10.1093/JAS/SKAA262.
120. G. F. S. Congio et al., “Prediction of enteric methane production and yield in sheep using a Latin America and Caribbean database,” Livest. Sci., vol. 264, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.105036.
121. T. Dekar and J. H. Komen, “Exploring appropriate methods to standardize data on enteric methane emission of Dutch dairy cows,” 2022, edepot.wur.nl. [Online]. Available: https://edepot.wur.nl/575342
122. J. B. Veneman, E. R. Saetnan, A. J. Clare, and C. J. Newbold, “MitiGate; an online meta-analysis database for quantification of mitigation strategies for enteric methane emissions,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 572, pp. 1166–1174, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.029.
123. B. Darabighane et al., “The Trade-Off between Enteric and Manure Methane Emissions and Their Bacterial Ecology in Lactating Cows Fed Diets Varying in Forage-to-Concentrate Ratio and Rapeseed Oil,” Methane, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 12–32, 2024, doi: 10.3390/methane3010002.
124. L. E. Moraes, J. G. Fadel, A. R. Castillo, D. P. Casper, J. M. Tricarico, and E. Kebreab, “Modeling the trade-off between diet costs and methane emissions: A goal programming approach,” J. Dairy Sci., vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 5557–5571, 2015, doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-9138.

Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 02
Issue 02
Received 08/12/2025
Accepted 14/12/2025
Published 27/12/2025
Publication Time 19 Days
142

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics