STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

International Journal of Atmosphere Review Article

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

  1. Md. Emran Hossain Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

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

References (124)

  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. Kader Esen V, Palangi V, Esen S. Genetic Improvement and Nutrigenomic Management of Ruminants to Achieve Enteric Methane Mitigation: A Review. Methane. 2022;1(4):342-354. doi:10.3390/methane1040025
  3. Ku-Vera JC, Castelán-Ortega OA, Galindo-Maldonado FA, Arango J, Chirinda N, Jiménez-Ocampo R, et al. Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages. Animal. 2020;14:s453-s463. doi:10.1017/s1751731120001780
  4. Pitta D, Indugu N, Narayan K, Hennessy M. Symposium review: Understanding the role of the rumen microbiome in enteric methane mitigation and productivity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105(10):8569-8585. 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. Ribeiro AA, Pinedo LA, Codognoto LDC, Cavali J, Porto MO, Santos BRCD, et al. Comparison of methods to measure enteric methane emissions from ruminants: an integrative review. Research, Society and Development. 2020;9(11):e8259118143. doi:10.33448/rsd-v9i11.8143
  7. Hristov AN, Melgar A, Wasson D, Arndt C. Symposium review: Effective nutritional strategies to mitigate enteric methane in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105(10):8543-8557. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21398
  8. Lakhani P, Kumar R, Madan J, Sindhu S. Ruminant Methane Mitigation- Strategy from Bench Top to Field Condition: A Review. Agricultural Reviews. 2022. doi:10.18805/ag.r-2152
  9. Palangi V, Taghizadeh A, Abachi S, Lackner M. Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions in Ruminants: A Review. Sustainability. 2022;14(20):13229. doi:10.3390/su142013229
  10. Gonzalez-Recio O, Scrobota N, López-Paredes J, Saborío-Montero A, Fernández A, López de Maturana E, et al. Review: Diving into the cow hologenome to reduce methane emissions and increase sustainability. animal. 2023;17:100780. doi:10.1016/j.animal.2023.100780
  11. Badgery W, Li G, Simmons A, Wood J, Smith R, Peck D, et al. Reducing enteric methane of ruminants in Australian grazing systems – a review of the role for temperate legumes and herbs. Crop & Pasture Science. 2023;74(8):661-679. doi:10.1071/cp22299
  12. Lambo MT, Ma H, Liu R, Dai B, Zhang Y, Li Y. Review: Mechanism, effectiveness, and the prospects of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds in lowering ruminants' enteric methane emission. animal. 2024;18(4):101134. doi:10.1016/j.animal.2024.101134
  13. Tricarico JM, de Haas Y, Hristov AN, Kebreab E, Kurt T, Mitloehner F, et al. Symposium review: Development of a funding program to support research on enteric methane mitigation from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105(10):8535-8542. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21397
  14. Colombini S, Graziosi AR, Galassi G, Gislon G, Crovetto GM, Enriquez-Hidalgo D, et al. Evaluation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) equations to predict enteric methane emission from lactating cows fed Mediterranean diets. JDS Communications. 2023;4(3):181-185. 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. Beck MR, Thompson LR, Campbell TN, Stackhouse-Lawson KA, Archibeque SL. Implied climate warming contributions of enteric methane emissions are dependent on the estimate source and accounting methodology. Applied Animal Science. 2022;38(6):639-647. doi:10.15232/aas.2022-02344
  17. Cheng M, McCarl B, Fei C. Climate Change and Livestock Production: A Literature Review. Atmosphere. 2022;13(1):140. doi:10.3390/atmos13010140
  18. Harmsen M, van Vuuren DP, Bodirsky BL, Chateau J, Durand-Lasserve O, Drouet L, et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Climatic Change. 2019;163(3):1409-1425. doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2
  19. Hammar T, Hansson PA, Röös E. Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;331:129948. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948
  20. Raynor EJ, Schilling-Hazlett A, Place SE, Martinez JV, Thompson LR, Johnston MK, et al. Snapshot of Enteric Methane Emissions from Stocker Cattle Grazing Extensive Semiarid Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 2024;93:77-80. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.001
  21. Mapfumo L, Grobler SM, Mupangwa JF, Scholtz MM, Muchenje V. Enteric methane output from selected herds of beef cattle raised under extensive arid rangelands. Pastoralism. 2018;8(1). doi:10.1186/s13570-018-0121-9
  22. Odongo NE, Bagg R, Vessie G, Dick P, Or-Rashid MM, Hook SE, et al. Long-Term Effects of Feeding Monensin on Methane Production in Lactating Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;90(4):1781-1788. doi:10.3168/jds.2006-708
  23. Molina-Botero IC, Montoya-Flores MD, Zavala-Escalante LM, Barahona-Rosales R, Arango J, Ku-Vera JC. 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. Journal of Animal Science. 2019. doi:10.1093/jas/skz067
  24. Guyader J, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Gérard C, Loncke C, Martin C. Long-term effect of linseed plus nitrate fed to dairy cows on enteric methane emission and nitrate and nitrite residuals in milk. Animal. 2016;10(7):1173-1181. doi:10.1017/s1751731115002852
  25. Ungerfeld EM, Beauchemin KA, Muñoz C. Current Perspectives on Achieving Pronounced Enteric Methane Mitigation From Ruminant Production. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2022;2. doi:10.3389/fanim.2021.795200
  26. de Souza Filho W, Nunes PADA, Barro RS, Kunrath TR, de Almeida GM, Genro TCM, et al. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: Trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;213:968-975. 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. Alemu A, Ominski KH, Kebreab E. Estimation of enteric methane emissions trends (1990–2008) from Manitoba beef cattle using empirical and mechanistic models. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2011;91(2):305-321. doi:10.4141/cjas2010-009
  33. Garg A, Kankal B, Shukla PR. Methane emissions in India: Sub-regional and sectoral trends. Atmospheric Environment. 2011;45(28):4922-4929. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.004
  34. Hardan A, Garnsworthy P, Bell M. RETRACTED: Variability in Enteric Methane Emissions among Dairy Cows during Lactation. Animals. 2022;13(1):157. doi:10.3390/ani13010157
  35. Díaz-Céspedes M, Hernández-Guevara JE, Gómez C. Enteric methane emissions by young Brahman bulls grazing tropical pastures at different rainfall seasons in the Peruvian jungle. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2021;53(4). 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. van Lingen HJ, Fadel JG, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, van Gastelen S. Smoothing spline assessment of the accuracy of enteric hydrogen and methane production measurements from dairy cattle using various sampling schemes. Journal of Dairy Science. 2023;106(10):6834-6848. doi:10.3168/jds.2022-23207
  38. McCauley JI, Labeeuw L, Jaramillo-Madrid AC, Nguyen LN, Nghiem LD, Chaves AV, et al. Management of Enteric Methanogenesis in Ruminants by Algal-Derived Feed Additives. Current Pollution Reports. 2020;6(3):188-205. doi:10.1007/s40726-020-00151-7
  39. Buccioni A, Cappucci A, Mele M. Methane Emission from Enteric Fermentation: Methanogenesis and Fermentation. Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation. 2015:171-186. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_11
  40. Yanibada B, Hohenester U, Pétéra M, Canlet C, Durand S, Jourdan F, et al. Inhibition of enteric methanogenesis in dairy cows induces changes in plasma metabolome highlighting metabolic shifts and potential markers of emission. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72145-w
  41. Kim ET, Moon YH, Min KS, Kim CH, Kim SC, Ahn SK, et al. Changes in Microbial Diversity, Methanogenesis and Fermentation Characteristics in the Rumen in Response to Medicinal Plant Extracts. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2013;26(9):1289-1294. 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. Tongwane MI, Moeletsi ME. Emission factors and carbon emissions of methane from enteric fermentation of cattle produced under different management systems in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;265:121931. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121931
  44. Soren NM, Sejian V, Terhuja M, Dominic G. Enteric Methane Emission in Sheep: Process Description and Factors Influencing Production. Sheep Production Adapting to Climate Change. 2017:209-233. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4714-5_10
  45. Goopy JP, Ndung’u PW, Onyango A, Kirui P, Butterbach-Bahl K. Calculation of new enteric methane emission factors for small ruminants in western Kenya highlights the heterogeneity of smallholder production systems. Animal Production Science. 2021;61(6):602-612. doi:10.1071/an19631
  46. Islam M, Kim SH, Son AR, Lee SS, Lee SS. Breed and Season-Specific Methane Conversion Factors Influence Methane Emission Factor for Enteric Methane of Dairy Steers. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7030. doi:10.3390/su14127030
  47. Widiawati Y, Rofiq MN, Tiesnamurti B. Methane emission factors for enteric fermentation in beef cattle using IPCC Tier-2 method in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner. 2016;21(2):101-111. doi:10.14334/jitv.v21i2.1358
  48. Donadia AB, Torres RNS, Silva HMD, Soares SR, Hoshide AK, Oliveira ASD. Factors Affecting Enteric Emission Methane and Predictive Models for Dairy Cows. Animals. 2023;13(11):1857. doi:10.3390/ani13111857
  49. Nelson CJ, Moser LE. Plant Factors Affecting Forage Quality. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Books. 1994:115-154. doi:10.2134/1994.foragequality.c3
  50. Feyissa AA, Senbeta F, Tolera A, Diriba D, Boonyanuwat K. Enteric methane emission factors of smallholder dairy farming systems across intensification gradients in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Carbon Balance and Management. 2023;18(1). doi:10.1186/s13021-023-00242-0
  51. Starsmore K, Lopez-Villalobos N, Shalloo L, Egan M, Burke J, Lahart B. Animal factors that affect enteric methane production measured using the GreenFeed monitoring system in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2024;107(5):2930-2940. doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23915
  52. Allen MR, Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Reisinger A, Pierrehumbert RT, Forster PM. New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change. 2016;6(8):773-776. doi:10.1038/nclimate2998
  53. Bačėninaitė D, Džermeikaitė K, Antanaitis R. Global Warming and Dairy Cattle: How to Control and Reduce Methane Emission. Animals. 2022;12(19):2687. doi:10.3390/ani12192687
  54. Beck MR, Thompson LR, Rowntree JE, Thompson TN, Koziel JA, Place SE, 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. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7. 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. Carrazco AV, Peterson CB, Zhao Y, Pan Y, McGlone JJ, DePeters EJ, et al. The Impact of Essential Oil Feed Supplementation on Enteric Gas Emissions and Production Parameters from Dairy Cattle. Sustainability. 2020;12(24):10347. doi:10.3390/su122410347
  58. McGinn SM, Flesch TK, Harper LA, Beauchemin KA. An Approach for Measuring Methane Emissions from Whole Farms. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2006;35(1):14-20. doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0250
  59. Bhatta R. Reducing Enteric Methane Emission Using Plant Secondary Metabolites. Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation. 2015:273-284. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_17
  60. Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC. Manipulation of Rumen Microbial Ecosystem for Reducing Enteric Methane Emission in Livestock. Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation. 2015:255-272. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_16
  61. Staerfl SM, Zeitz JO, Kreuzer M, Soliva CR. 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. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2012;148:111-120. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.003
  62. Kelly L, Kebreab E. Recent advances in feed additives with the potential to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2023;78(2):111-123. doi:10.2489/jswc.2023.00070
  63. Machado JM, Motta EAMD, Barbosa MR, Weiler RL, Mills A, Ongaratto F, et al. Strategies to mitigate the emission of methane in pastures: enteric methane: A review. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2022:682-690. doi:10.21475/ajcs.22.16.06.p3457
  64. Eugène M, Klumpp K, Sauvant D. Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants. Grass and Forage Science. 2021;76(2):196-204. doi:10.1111/gfs.12540
  65. Pan Y, Rao Z, Yu W, Chen B, Chu C. Water Vapor Condensation Triggers Simultaneous Oxidation and Hydrolysis of Organic Pollutants on Iron Mineral Surfaces. Environmental Science & Technology. 2024;58(27):12147-12154. doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c03195
  66. Boadi DA, Wittenberg KM, Scott SL, Burton D, Buckley K, Small JA, et al. Effect of low and high forage diet on enteric and manure pack greenhouse gas emissions from a feedlot. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2004;84(3):445-453. doi:10.4141/a03-079
  67. Oliveira LF, Ruggieri AC, Branco RH, Cota OL, Canesin RC, Costa HJU, et al. Feed efficiency and enteric methane production of Nellore cattle in the feedlot and on pasture. Animal Production Science. 2016;58(5):886-893. doi:10.1071/an16303
  68. Velazco JI, Cottle DJ, Hegarty RS. Methane emissions and feeding behaviour of feedlot cattle supplemented with nitrate or urea. Animal Production Science. 2014;54(10):1737-1740. doi:10.1071/an14345
  69. Silva RA, Fiorentini G, Messana JD, Lage JF, Castagnino PS, San Vito E, et al. Effects of different forms of soybean lipids on enteric methane emission, performance and meat quality of feedlot Nellore. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2018;156(3):427-436. 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. Dumortier P, Aubinet M, Beckers Y, Chopin H, Debacq A, Gourlez de la Motte L, et al. Methane balance of an intensively grazed pasture and estimation of the enteric methane emissions from cattle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2017;232:527-535. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.010
  72. Flores-Coello G, Hernández-Medrano JH, Ku-Vera J, Diaz D, Solorio-Sánchez FJ, Sarabia-Salgado L, et al. Intensive Silvopastoral Systems Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Cattle. Atmosphere. 2023;14(5):863. doi:10.3390/atmos14050863
  73. Martínez-Marín G, Schiavon S, Tagliapietra F, Cecchinato A, Toledo-Alvarado H, Bittante G. Interactions among breed, farm intensiveness and cow productivity on predicted enteric methane emissions at the population level. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2023;22(1):59-75. doi:10.1080/1828051x.2022.2158953
  74. Kirwan SF, Tamassia LFM, Walker ND, Karagiannis A, Kindermann M, Waters SM. 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. Journal of Animal Science. 2023;102. doi:10.1093/jas/skad399
  75. Schilde M, von Soosten D, Hüther L, Kersten S, Meyer U, Zeyner A, 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. 2021;11(6):1784. 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. Olijhoek DW, Hellwing ALF, Noel SJ, Lund P, Larsen M, Weisbjerg MR, 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. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;105(12):9523-9541. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21676
  78. Ferris CP, Jiao H, Murray S, Gordon A, Laidlaw S. Effect of dairy cow genotype and concentrate feed level on cow performance and enteric methane emissions during grazing. Agricultural and Food Science. 2020;29(2). doi:10.23986/afsci.83442
  79. de Ondarza MB, Hristov AN, Tricarico JM. A global dataset of enteric methane mitigation experiments with beef cattle conducted from 1963 to 2023. Data in Brief. 2024;55:110666. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2024.110666
  80. Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Annales de Zootechnie. 2000;49(3):231-253. doi:10.1051/animres:2000119
  81. de Ondarza MB, Hristov AN, Tricarico JM. A global dataset of enteric methane mitigation experiments with lactating and non-lactating dairy cows conducted from 1963 to 2022. Data in Brief. 2023;49:109459. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2023.109459
  82. Sejian V, Shekhawat I, Ujor V, Ezeji T, Lakritz J, Lal R. Global Climate Change: Enteric Methane Reduction Strategies in Livestock. Environmental Stress and Amelioration in Livestock Production. 2012:469-499. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29205-7_16
  83. Thorpe A. Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: the role (and control?) of methane in the climate change debate. Climatic Change. 2008;93(3-4):407-431. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9506-x
  84. Pragna P, Chauhan SS, Sejian V, Leury BJ, Dunshea FR. Climate Change and Goat Production: Enteric Methane Emission and Its Mitigation. Animals. 2018;8(12):235. doi:10.3390/ani8120235
  85. Sejian V, K. Naqvi SM. Livestock and Climate Change: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Methane Production. Greenhouse Gases - Capturing, Utilization and Reduction. 2012. doi:10.5772/32014
  86. SUN J, ZHAO G, LI MM. USING NUTRITIONAL STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE RUMINAL METHANE EMISSIONS FROM RUMINANTS. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering. 2023;0(0):0. doi:10.15302/j-fase-2023504
  87. Vargas J, Ungerfeld E, Muñoz C, DiLorenzo N. Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems. Animals. 2022;12(9):1132. doi:10.3390/ani12091132
  88. Dini Y, Gere JI, Cajarville C, Ciganda VS. Using highly nutritious pastures to mitigate enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing systems in South America. Animal Production Science. 2017;58(12):2329-2334. doi:10.1071/an16803
  89. Tseten T, Sanjorjo RA, Kwon M, Kim SW. Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminant Animals. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2022;32(3):269-277. 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. van Gastelen S, Dijkstra J, Bannink A. Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep? Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;102(7):6109-6130. 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. Vargas J, Ungerfeld E, Muñoz C, DiLorenzo N. Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems. Animals. 2022;12(9):1132. doi:10.3390/ani12091132
  94. Thacharodi A, Hassan S, Ahmed ZHT, Singh P, Maqbool M, Meenatchi R, et al. The ruminant gut microbiome vs enteric methane emission: The essential microbes may help to mitigate the global methane crisis. Environmental Research. 2024;261:119661. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.119661
  95. Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ, McClelland SC, Pelaez AM, Cueva SF, 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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119(20). doi:10.1073/pnas.2111294119
  96. Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ, McClelland SC, Pelaez AM, Cueva SF, et al. Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions by ruminants - a way to approach the 2.0°C target. 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. Williams SRO, Moate PJ, Hannah MC, Ribaux BE, Wales WJ, Eckard RJ. Background matters with the SF6 tracer method for estimating enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: A critical evaluation of the SF6 procedure. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2011;170(3-4):265-276. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.013
  100. Moate PJ, Pryce JE, Marett LC, Garner JB, Deighton MH, Ribaux BE, et al. Measurement of Enteric Methane Emissions by the SF6 Technique Is Not Affected by Ambient Weather Conditions. Animals. 2021;11(2):528. doi:10.3390/ani11020528
  101. Arbre M, Rochette Y, Guyader J, Lascoux C, Gómez LM, Eugène M, et al. Repeatability of enteric methane determinations from cattle using either the SF6 tracer technique or the GreenFeed system. Animal Production Science. 2016;56(3):238-243. 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. Lassey KR, Pinares-Patiño CS, Martin RJ, Molano G, McMillan AMS. Enteric methane emission rates determined by the SF6 tracer technique: Temporal patterns and averaging periods. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2011;166-167:183-191. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.066
  104. Pinares-Patiño C, Gere J, Williams K, Gratton R, Juliarena P, Molano G, et al. Extending the Collection Duration of Breath Samples for Enteric Methane Emission Estimation Using the SF6 Tracer Technique. Animals. 2012;2(2):275-287. doi:10.3390/ani2020275
  105. Chagunda MGG, Yan T. Do methane measurements from a laser detector and an indirect open-circuit respiration calorimetric chamber agree sufficiently closely? Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2011;165(1-2):8-14. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.005
  106. Landín GM, Rodríguez ER, de Souza TCR, Ordaz Ochoa G. Accuracy validation of open-circuit respiration chambers for the assessment of energy metabolism and enteric methane emissions in pigs and small ruminants. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation. 2024;97:102564. 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. Wang R, Wang M, Zhang XM, Yang HM, Wen JN, Ma ZY, et al. Technical note: Evaluation of interval between measurements and calculation method for the quantification of enteric methane emissions measured by respiration chamber. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;102(7):6242-6247. doi:10.3168/jds.2019-16245
  109. Ku-Vera JC, Valencia-Salazar SS, Piñeiro-Vázquez AT, Molina-Botero IC, Arroyave-Jaramillo J, Montoya-Flores MD, et al. Determination of methane yield in cattle fed tropical grasses as measured in open-circuit respiration chambers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2018;258:3-7. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.008
  110. Alemu AW, Vyas D, Manafiazar G, Basarab JA, Beauchemin KA. Enteric methane emissions from low– and high–residual feed intake beef heifers measured using GreenFeed and respiration chamber techniques1,2. Journal of Animal Science. 2017;95(8):3727-3737. doi:10.2527/jas.2017.1501
  111. Jonker A, Molano G, Antwi C, Waghorn GC. 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 frequencies1–3. Journal of Animal Science. 2016;94(10):4326-4337. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0646
  112. Zhao YG, O'Connell NE, Yan T. Prediction of enteric methane emissions from sheep offered fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) using data measured in indirect open-circuit respiration chambers1. Journal of Animal Science. 2016;94(6):2425-2435. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0334
  113. Arceo-Castillo JI, Jiménez-Ocampo R, Flores-Santiago EDJ, Escobar-Restrepo CS, Aguilar-Pérez CF, Solorio-Sánchez FJ, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of open-circuit respiration chambers for measuring enteric methane emissions in cattle. Atmósfera. 2021. doi:10.20937/atm.52839
  114. Belanche A, Hristov AN, van Lingen HJ, Denman SE, Kebreab E, Schwarm A, et al. Prediction of enteric methane emissions by sheep using an intercontinental database. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2023;384:135523. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135523
  115. Ryan CV, Pabiou T, Purfield DC, Berry DP, Conroy S, Murphy CP, 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. Journal of Animal Science. 2024;102. doi:10.1093/jas/skae034
  116. Ndung'u PW, Kirui P, Takahashi T, du Toit CJL, Merbold L, Goopy JP. Data describing cattle performance and feed characteristics to calculate enteric methane emissions in smallholder livestock systems in Bomet County, Kenya. Data in Brief. 2021;39:107673. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107673
  117. Liu R, Hailemariam D, Yang T, Miglior F, Schenkel F, Wang Z, et al. Predicting enteric methane emission in lactating Holsteins based on reference methane data collected by the GreenFeed system. animal. 2022;16(3):100469. doi:10.1016/j.animal.2022.100469
  118. Congio GFS, Bannink A, Mayorga OL, Rodrigues JPP, Bougouin A, Kebreab E, et al. Prediction of enteric methane production and yield in sheep using a Latin America and Caribbean database. Livestock Science. 2022;264:105036. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2022.105036
  119. Ross EM, Hayes BJ, Tucker D, Bond J, Denman SE, Oddy VH. Genomic predictions for enteric methane production are improved by metabolome and microbiome data in sheep (Ovis aries). Journal of Animal Science. 2020;98(10). doi:10.1093/jas/skaa262
  120. Congio GFS, Bannink A, Mayorga OL, Rodrigues JPP, Bougouin A, Kebreab E, et al. Prediction of enteric methane production and yield in sheep using a Latin America and Caribbean database. Livestock Science. 2022;264:105036. 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. Veneman JB, Saetnan ER, Clare AJ, Newbold CJ. MitiGate; an online meta-analysis database for quantification of mitigation strategies for enteric methane emissions. Science of The Total Environment. 2016;572:1166-1174. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.029
  123. Darabighane B, Tapio I, Rasi S, Seppänen AM, Blasco L, Ahvenjärvi S, 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. 2024;3(1):12-32. doi:10.3390/methane3010002
  124. Moraes LE, Fadel JG, Castillo AR, Casper DP, Tricarico JM, Kebreab E. Modeling the trade-off between diet costs and methane emissions: A goal programming approach. Journal of Dairy Science. 2015;98(8):5557-5571. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-9138