Feed additives for methane mitigation: Assessment of feed additives as a strategy to mitigate enteric methane from ruminants—Accounting; How to quantify the mitigating potential of using antimethanogenic feed additives

Recent advances in our understanding of methanogenesis have led to the development of antimethanogenic feed additives (AMFA) that can reduce enteric methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emissions to varying extents, via direct targeting of methanogens, alternative electron acceptors, or altering the rumen environment. Here we examine current and new approaches used for the accounting (i.e., quantification) of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> abatement by the use of AMFA in the livestock sector from the individual animal to the global scale. Along with this process, recommendations are provided on how to account for the mitigation potential at the animal level, as well as in farm-scale models, emissions trading schemes, life cycle assessment, and carbon (C) footprinting tools, and in regional and national inventories. In addition, an assessment of uncertainties and potential trade-offs and off-setting with the use of AMFA (i.e., efficacy vs. effectiveness, upstream and downstream emissions) is provided. The accounting of on-farm enteric CH<sub>4</sub> emissions and benefits from the use of AMFA starts with the ruminant animal (with estimates obtained from a range of approaches, from simple empirical emission factors or equations to complex process-based models) and goes all the way to national and supranational accounting. The choice of methodologies and levels of complexity to account for mitigation of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> (or total GHG) emissions in livestock systems must be tailored to the scale of analysis aimed, the availability of input data to represent contextualized conditions, and the accounting objectives (e.g., academic exercise vs. producer's GHG certification vs. national GHG inventory). The accounting of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> mitigating effects needs to consider the AMFA delivery methods and synergies and trade-offs of GHG emissions at levels before and beyond (upstream and downstream) the animal to fully assess the impact of AMFA use. At large, the accounting of methane abatement by feed additives remains to be fully assessed beyond experimental results (efficacy) to address pragmatism (effectiveness), potential for adoption, and societal acceptance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2024-12-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25044
Citations
18
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Feed additives for methane mitigation: Assessment of feed additives as a strategy to mitigate enteric methane from ruminants—Accounting; How to quantify the mitigating potential of using antimethanogenic feed additives

A. del Prado, Fábio Luís Henrique, André Mancebo Mazzetto, Fernanda Figueiredo Granja Dorilêo Leite et al.
18 citations
Journal of Dairy Science
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
8.26
article

Feed additives for methane mitigation: Assessment of feed additives as a strategy to mitigate enteric methane from ruminants—Accounting; How to quantify the mitigating potential of using antimethanogenic feed additives

A. del Prado, Fábio Luís Henrique, André Mancebo Mazzetto, Fernanda Figueiredo Granja Dorilêo Leite, Ronaldo Vibart, Bradley G. Ridoutt, Franco Bilotto, A. Bannink, David R. Yáñez-Ruíz, Claudia Faverín, F. Javier Giráldez García
article en
18 citations

Abstract

Recent advances in our understanding of methanogenesis have led to the development of antimethanogenic feed additives (AMFA) that can reduce enteric methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emissions to varying extents, via direct targeting of methanogens, alternative electron acceptors, or altering the rumen environment. Here we examine current and new approaches used for the accounting (i.e., quantification) of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> abatement by the use of AMFA in the livestock sector from the individual animal to the global scale. Along with this process, recommendations are provided on how to account for the mitigation potential at the animal level, as well as in farm-scale models, emissions trading schemes, life cycle assessment, and carbon (C) footprinting tools, and in regional and national inventories. In addition, an assessment of uncertainties and potential trade-offs and off-setting with the use of AMFA (i.e., efficacy vs. effectiveness, upstream and downstream emissions) is provided. The accounting of on-farm enteric CH<sub>4</sub> emissions and benefits from the use of AMFA starts with the ruminant animal (with estimates obtained from a range of approaches, from simple empirical emission factors or equations to complex process-based models) and goes all the way to national and supranational accounting. The choice of methodologies and levels of complexity to account for mitigation of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> (or total GHG) emissions in livestock systems must be tailored to the scale of analysis aimed, the availability of input data to represent contextualized conditions, and the accounting objectives (e.g., academic exercise vs. producer's GHG certification vs. national GHG inventory). The accounting of enteric CH<sub>4</sub> mitigating effects needs to consider the AMFA delivery methods and synergies and trade-offs of GHG emissions at levels before and beyond (upstream and downstream) the animal to fully assess the impact of AMFA use. At large, the accounting of methane abatement by feed additives remains to be fully assessed beyond experimental results (efficacy) to address pragmatism (effectiveness), potential for adoption, and societal acceptance.

Journal of Dairy ScienceVol. 108(1)
Ikerbasque (ES), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR), National University of Mar del Plata (AR), Cornell University (US), University of the Free State (ZA), AgResearch (NZ), National Institute of Industrial Technology (AR), Estación Experimental del Zaidín (ES), Basque Centre for Climate Change (ES), New York State College of Agriculture & Life Sciences (US), Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia (BR), National Agricultural Technology Institute (AR), Universidad de Montevideo (UY), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
8.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.