Planet on the Breath: Confronting the Methane Burp Challenge from Cattle

Climate change is often portrayed as an environment where factories release smoke and toxic gases, industries produce chemicals and other toxic products, and the accompanying pollution causes long-term adverse effects to human and planetary health. The solutions are here today, staring resilience professionals in the face. Case in point, one of the strongest, short-term threats to the planet actually originates from an unlikely setting–inside the stomachs of grazing cattle. As cattle digest food, they release methane through burps, a greenhouse gas invisible to the eye but extremely powerful. In fact, methane (CH₄) traps heat with a warming effect more than 84 times stronger than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period (European Commission, 2024). 

Tackling methane is crucial for addressing climate change in the near term due to the outsized impact it has on atmospheric, and resulting planetary health.

Globally, livestock are responsible for about 14.5 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions, and methane from cattle accounts for much of this livestock share, contributing about two-thirds of livestock GHG emissions (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2018). Since methane is both highly potent and short-lived in the atmosphere, cutting these emissions could deliver some of the fastest and most effective opportunities for climate action.

The challenge is clear: the reduction of methane without sacrificing the productivity, economic viability, and overall welfare of livestock, the environments they inhabit, and broader ecosystem health.. By blending traditional farming methods with modern science, cattle could shift from being a climate culprit into being a vital part of the solution.

Methane from the Rumen: Microbial Ecology and Climate Responsibility

Methane released from cattle, known as enteric methane, is produced during digestion inside the rumen, the specialized stomach chamber of ruminant animals. This process occurs when microbes, particularly a group of bacteria and fungi break down fibrous plant material that many other animals cannot digest. As they ferment food, specialized methanogenic archaea convert byproducts like hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane with the help of an enzyme called methyl-coenzyme M reductase, which catalyzes the final step of methane formation (Gendron & Allen, 2022). This natural process highlights the unique partnership of symbiosis between cattle and their gut microbes, allowing the animals to survive on grasses and crop residues. However, the problem is that it also makes them major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

The scale of methane release is significant on a global level. Enteric fermentation from cattle and other ruminants accounts for roughly 29 percent of the approximately 42 percent of human-driven methane emissions worldwide, making the scale of methane release significant at the global level (United Nations Environment Program & Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2021). These numbers place livestock methane among the top contributors to climate change, alongside fossil fuel use and industrial processes. Policymakers and scientists increasingly emphasize the need to address cattle methane not only to meet emission targets but also to slow near-term warming, since methane is a short-lived yet powerful greenhouse gas.

However, recent microbiome research shows that reducing methane is not as straightforward as it might seem. Methane production is closely connected to the entire internal ecology of the rumen. When methanogens are suppressed, hydrogen begins to build up, which alters the normal balance of microbial fermentation. Instead of producing acetate, a key energy source for cattle, the system shifts toward other products such as formate, ethanol, lactate, succinate and propionate (Ungerfeld, 2020). This change affects the efficiency and stability of the microbial community, which includes not only archaea but also bacteria and fungi that influence methane levels.

In this sense, methane is more than just a climate pollutant– it is a sign of a carefully tuned microbial partnership inside the animal’s gut. Therefore, efforts to reduce emissions must foster a balance between technical possibilities, animal health and ecological ethics, raising important questions about how much humans should interfere with natural biological systems in the pursuit of climate solutions.

Mitigation Strategies: Feed Additives and Nutritional Interventions

Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP): Leading the Way

3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) is currently the most effective commercial feed additive developed to reduce methane emissions from cattle. Research trials show its strong effectiveness with beef steers on controlled finishing diets achieving methane reductions of between 65 percent and 88 percent(Vyas et al., 2018). Dairy cows in indoor feeding systems also show consistent decreases of about 30 percent(Hristov et al., 2015). The way it works is straightforward as it blocks methyl-coenzyme M reductase, the enzyme that enables the final step of methane production inside the rumen (Pitta et al., 2022). By interrupting this process, it significantly lowers the amount of methane released during digestion.

Still, how well 3-NOP performs depends a great deal on the conditions in which partaking cattle reside. In feedlot or indoor systems where animals eat carefully prepared total mixed rations, intake is steady and the additive works effectively. But, challenge arises in grazing systems, where cattle eat irregularly and forage varies in quality. In these settings, the impact of 3-NOP drops off quickly. For example, one study showed that methane levels fell sharply by around 28 percent within the first three hours of dosing, but the effect faded rapidly, leaving only a 5 percent reduction over a full day (Romero-Perez et al., 2015). This inconsistency makes it difficult to achieve reliable long-term reductions in open grazing environments.

This limitation highlights a key obstacle in using 3-NOP as a global solution. While the compound clearly marks a major step forward in livestock methane mitigation, its real benefits are mostly seen in intensive and controlled production systems, which make up only a portion of the world’s cattle industry. The majority of cattle are raised in grazing-based and smallholder systems, especially in developing countries, where methane emissions are also substantial. Without effective ways to adapt 3-NOP for these contexts, the additive’s overall climate impact remains restricted. For real-world progress, strategies must focus on scaling its use beyond feedlots and into more diverse and widespread livestock systems.

Seaweed-Based Additives: Promise and Paradoxes

Red seaweed, especially Asparagopsis taxiformis, has gained attention because it contains bromoform, a natural compound that strongly blocks methane production in cattle. In controlled experiments, this seaweed has shown remarkable results, cutting methane emissions by more than 80-90% when used at the optimal dosing (Kinley et al., 2020). Even outside the lab, grazing trials have been promising with beef steers producing about 38% less methane when seaweed was included in their diets during testing periods (Roque et al., 2019). These findings suggest that seaweed could become a valuable tool in reducing livestock-related greenhouse gases.

Beyond reducing methane, feeding cattle seaweed appears to influence ruminal fermentation in a way that may support better digestion and animal health. The overall productivity also could be improved as a result of these changes (Wanapat et al., 2024). Still, there are major hurdles to overcome before seaweed can be widely adopted. The active compound, bromoform, poses a risk of its potential toxicity, and it raises questions for regulators. On top of that, delivering consistent amounts of additives to grazing animals is challenging. Unlike in controlled feeding systems, ensuring cattle across vast rangelands get the right dose on a regular basis is logistically difficult. These challenges slow down the practical use of seaweed in everyday farming.

What makes seaweed particularly appealing is its “nature-based” image, which aligns with growing interest in sustainable climate solutions. Yet this same promise comes with new concerns about feasibility and scale. Supplying seaweed as a feed additive to the world’s billions of cattle would require massive production and distribution systems, raising questions about whether marine ecosystems could sustain such demand. If large-scale harvesting or farming of seaweed puts pressure on ocean environments, the solution might simply shift ecological problems from land to sea. This tension highlights the need to balance innovation with sustainability, ensuring that seaweed can truly serve as part of the climate solution without creating new environmental trade-offs.

Emerging Feed Additive Technologies

Researchers have found that several feed additives, while not as dramatic as seaweed or 3-NOP, still hold potential for lowering methane emissions in cattle. Condensed tannins, which occur naturally in plants like acacia can cut methane output by about 10-25 percent while also helping cattle make better use of dietary protein, which improves overall feed efficiency (Jayanegara et al., 2012). Essential oils including compounds such as eugenol and cinnamaldehyde, also show promise by targeting specific microbes in the rumen that produce methane. However, their effects are often temporary as rumen microbes tend to adapt over time, reducing the long-term impact (Calsamiglia et al., 2007). These options demonstrate that even small changes in diet can influence methane production in important ways, and in short periods.

Another approach that has been studied is nitrate supplementation. This method works by redirecting hydrogen in the rumen away from producing methane and instead using it to reduce nitrate into nitrite. While this process can be effective, it comes with a significant drawback: nitrite build-up can be toxic to the animal, making it risky to use at scale without careful management (Lee & Beauchemin, 2014). This challenge highlights the delicate balance between finding solutions that meaningfully cut emissions while also protecting the health and productivity of livestock. Without addressing safety concerns, nitrate use is unlikely to become a widely accepted strategy.

Taken together, these different approaches make one point clear: there is no single “silver bullet” for solving the methane problem in livestock. Instead, progress will likely come from combining several smaller interventions to create a larger overall effect. For example, tannins, essential oils and carefully managed nitrate use may each contribute a modest reduction but when they are stacked together, they could achieve reductions that are meaningful across different production systems. This layered strategy also allows flexibility, since no single farm or region faces the same conditions. By blending multiple tools rather than relying on one solution, it becomes more realistic to cut methane emissions in ways that work for both intensive feedlot operations and extensive grazing systems.

Genetic and Microbial Engineering Approaches

Genetic Selection for Low-Methane Cattle

Scientists have found that methane emissions in cattle are partly influenced by genetics with heritability levels ranging between 0.15 and 0.39 (Ryan et al., 2025). This means it is possible to selectively breed cattle that naturally produce less methane without reducing their ability to grow or remain productive. Recent advances in genome-wide studies have identified genetic markers connected not only to methane emissions but also to traits such as residual feed intake (Manzanilla-Pech et al., 2022). These discoveries make it easier to select animals indirectly for both efficiency and lower methane output offering a practical path toward reducing emissions through genetics.

What makes this approach particularly promising is the evidence that genetic variation related to methane emission exists within and across different breeds of cattle which allows similar traits to be targeted for selection in various production system. Multi-breed studies and genomic tools helps in identification of animals with naturally lower methane emission in diverse environments. This consistency allows the development of standardized breeding indices that farmers and breeders can use worldwide to gradually lower methane emissions from livestock herds (Assan, 2025). Over time, this could make genetic selection an important part of climate-smart livestock management.

Still, the idea of breeding animals specifically for reduced methane raises broader questions. While it clearly contributes to climate goals, it may risk shaping animals to fit into livestock systems that may be unsustainable in the long run. The debate centers on whether such breeding represents a true step towards transforming agriculture for environmental balance or simply a way to adapt animals to current practices without addressing deeper systemic challenges. These ethical and practical considerations show that while genetic selection is a powerful tool, it must be carefully integrated with wider strategies for sustainable livestock production.

Microbiome-Assisted Breeding and Genetic Engineering

Recent metagenomic studies have revealed that certain rumen microbes such as Eubacterium and Blautia are heritable and negatively associated with methane emission in cattle, highlighting their potential as targets for microbiome-assisted breeding. Additionally, 30 most important microbial genes were found to cut methane emissions by about 17 percent per generation ,which is an even bigger reduction than the 13 percent achieved when using traditional respiration chamber measurements (Martínez-Álvaro et al., 2022). These insights open the door to microbiome-informed breeding, where the microbial makeup of an animal’s gut could help guide genetic selection. Alongside this, scientists are exploring new biotechnologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, TALENs, ZFNs, Prime editing, and others for their ability to directly target methane-related pathways, offering precise ways to alter either host genetics or microbial communities in order to reduce emissions (Khan et at., 2024). Together, these innovations highlight how modern science is moving beyond diet and management toward more targeted biological solutions.

At the same time, the rumen is a highly complex ecosystem where the animal’s genetics, diet, and diverse microbial populations are deeply interconnected. Any attempt to manipulate one component risks unintended ripple effects across the system. For instance, altering microbial populations might reduce methane but could also disrupt digestion, nutrient absorption or animal health if not carefully balanced. Because of this complexity, proposed interventions must be extensively validated before being applied widely. The challenge lies in ensuring that new tools such as microbiome-informed breeding or gene editing deliver genuine environmental benefits without creating new ecological or ethical problems.

This balance underscores the need for cautious innovation where scientific advances are matched with thorough testing and consideration of the broader impacts on both livestock systems and ecosystems as a whole.

Measurement Technologies and Standardization Challenges

Current Measurement Approaches

Precisely quantifying methane emissions is essential to verify the effectiveness of different mitigation strategies. The most reliable method ("gold standard") available today is the use of respiration chambers. It can provide highly precise data on methane output from individual animals. However, these chambers are expensive, labor-intensive to operate, and have limited capacity, making them less practical for large-scale studies. To overcome these challenges, researchers and farmers are increasingly turning to field-based approaches. Techniques such as the sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) tracer method, portable accumulation chambers, and new sensor-based systems make it possible to gather data from more animals under real-world conditions (Tedeschi et al., 2022). These methods may not always match the precision of respiration chambers, but they allow broader measurement and reflect actual production systems.

In recent years, technological innovation has further improved the ability to monitor livestock methane. Automated head chambers, handheld laser detection devices, and continuous real-time sensors are transforming the way emissions are tracked. These tools provide more accurate and consistent data while reducing the burden of manual measurement. Importantly, they also allow herd-level monitoring on commercial farms rather than focusing only on small experimental groups. With better data resolution, farmers and researchers can more effectively evaluate the impact of feed additives, breeding strategies, and other interventions aimed at lowering emissions. By making methane measurement more practical and precise, these advances lay the groundwork for integrating mitigation solutions into everyday livestock management on a much larger scale.

Scalability and Standardization Issues

Even with advances in technology, creating standardized methods for measuring methane remains a major challenge. Emissions can vary widely depending on environmental conditions, the behaviour of individual animals, and the type of production system. This is especially true in extensive grazing systems where cattle roam over large areas and feed on variable pastures, making it difficult to collect consistent and reliable data (Blaustein-Rejto & Gambino, 2023). Without clear and uniform protocols, comparisons across studies or farms become problematic, limiting the ability to evaluate the true effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

The lack of standardized approaches also complicates how methane reduction is assessed in relation to broader national and subnational commitments to sustainability goals. Reliable metrics need to connect methane emissions not just with animal productivity but also with overall carbon footprints and the economic realities faced by farmers. Without this integration, efforts to reward or incentivize methane reductions may lead to inconsistent or even unfair outcomes. This makes the issue of measurement more than just a technical hurdle; it also becomes a political question. How methane is defined, measured, and reported plays a direct role in shaping climate policy, determining what qualifies as progress, and influencing how governments, industries, and farmers commit to change. Establishing fair, transparent, and widely accepted standards will therefore be crucial to building trust and driving meaningful action on livestock methane.

Economic and Practical Adoption Barriers

Cost-Benefit Realities

Economic studies show that one of the biggest obstacles to cutting livestock methane is the cost to farmers. Feed additives like 3-NOP designed to reduce emissions can cost between $100 and $150 per cow each year, which often exceeds the immediate financial benefits that the producers receive (Hegde, 2025). On top of this, getting approval of new additives is an expensive and time-consuming process for manufacturers as well. Lengthy regulatory reviews mean that even when promising technologies are developed, they can take years to reach farmers. These combined costs and delays make it difficult for producers to see methane mitigation as a financially sound investment.

There are potential ways to improve the economics of methane mitigation in livestock such as carbon markets or targeted subsidies which can reward farmers for adopting low-emission practices. These mechanisms could help balance the costs by offering financial returns linked to climate-friendly choices. However, current policy frameworks and market systems rarely provide strong enough incentives for producers to act. Without reliable compensation or clear market value for methane reductions, most farmers are unlikely to adopt these technologies at scale. This gap shows the need for better policies that not only support innovation but also make methane mitigation a practical and profitable choice for the livestock sector.

System-Specific Constraints

One of the biggest challenges for livestock production is the seasonal shortage of both the amount and quality of animal feed. These problems are rarely addressed through feed supplementation because farmers often lack proper facilities, technical skills or management support. Unlike large-scale commercial farms, smallholder and extensive grazing systems usually don't have the resources to provide animals with special feed additives or carefully balanced diet (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002). So, even if solutions like feed additives or slow-release technologies are scientifically effective, the realities of extensive grazing large, dispersed herds feeding on variable forage can severely limit their practical impact. As a result, the majority of the world’s cattle, which reside in these systems, remain largely untapped in global methane reduction efforts, highlighting a substantial gap between technological potential and real-world application. 

Beyond these logistical challenges lies a broader issue of global inequality. Wealthier nations in the Global North have historically contributed the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions and also possess the financial resources, infrastructure, and institutional capacity to implement advanced mitigation strategies. These countries can more readily adopt feed additives, precision nutrition, and genetic selection programs, while maintaining high productivity and animal welfare. In contrast, livestock farming in many developing countries serves critical roles in rural livelihoods, local nutrition, and cultural practices. 

Farmers often lack access to affordable feed additives, technical support, or capital for breeding programs and advanced management systems. This imbalance creates a situation where the communities least responsible for climate change are the ones most affected by it, while having limited ability to implement costly mitigation measures. Low- and middle-income countries also face additional obstacles, including inconsistent supply chains, limited extension services and competing priorities such as food security, poverty reduction and rural development (Wilson, Ehui & Mack, 1995). Ensuring that animal health, welfare, and productivity are maintained adds another layer of complexity, since poorly implemented interventions could inadvertently compromise ethical or sustainable livestock practices.

Behind technical debates on methane reduction lies a deeper issue of climate justice. How can the world achieve ambitious methane reduction targets without undermining the livelihoods, food security, or resilience of the communities most vulnerable to climate impacts? Reducing enteric methane is not simply a matter of deploying technology; it requires inclusive, context-dependent strategies that balance environmental goals with social and economic realities.

Policies and programs must be designed to equitably distribute costs and benefits, providing incentives, technical support, and financial mechanisms that allow smallholder and extensive livestock farmers to participate meaningfully in mitigation efforts. In this sense, methane reduction represents a societal benefit, but is often perceived a localized burden to farmers. Bridging this divide will be critical for global progress, ensuring that climate action does not reinforce existing inequalities, but instead supports sustainable livestock systems that are productive, ethical and resilient across all regions of the world.

Integrated Multi-Strategy Approaches: The Way Forward

Systems-Based Solutions

No single strategy alone can achieve the ambitious goal of reducing methane emissions. Instead, the most practical path is combining multiple approaches and looking at the issue from different perspectives. Product-based strategies such as increasing feeding levels, using younger grass or adjusting the forage-to-concentrate ratio, can reduce methane intensity by about 12% on average while boosting animal productivity by 17%. Absolute strategies, including methane inhibitors like 3-NOP, tanniferous forages, electron sinks, oils and oilseeds, can lower daily methane emissions by around 21%. Using one product-based and one absolute strategy together in blended approach could help meet the 1.5°C climate target by 2030 (Arndt et al., 2022). By integrating these strategies, it is possible to achieve meaningful emission reductions without sacrificing productivity or animal health, creating a balanced approach that addresses both environmental and agricultural goals.

Recent breakthroughs in systems biology have made it possible to design comprehensive mitigation packages. This approach allows researchers and farmers to adapt to solutions for specific regions, considering factors such as local production practices, seasonal feed variations, climate conditions and socioeconomic realities. By accounting for these variables, mitigation strategies can be enhanced for effectiveness, practicality, and fairness. In practice, this means that interventions are not “one-size-fits-all” but are adapted to the context of each livestock system, from intensive feedlots to extensive grazing operations. Such an adaptable approach maximizes the potential for sustainable methane reductions while supporting resilient and productive livestock systems around the world.

Policy and Implementation Framework

Effective climate action depends on coordinated policy frameworks that both support farmers and foster innovation. This includes offering clear incentives for producers to adopt methane-reducing practices, maintaining consistent funding for research and ensuring that new knowledge and technologies reach stakeholders effectively. Evaluating these interventions also requires careful life cycle assessments, which consider not only the reduction of methane emissions but also potential environmental trade-offs in other areas, such as land use, water consumption or nutrient cycling (Gerber, Henderson & Makkar, 2013). Without an integrated perspective, efforts to mitigate emissions could create unintended consequences that might compromise the overall ambitions of achieving sustainability.

Adaptive and flexible modeling tools play a critical role in this process by helping policymakers, researchers and producers respond to emerging technologies and changing environmental conditions. These tools allow strategies to be applied to local contexts, accounting for variations in climate, feed availability, production system and socioeconomic factors. The challenge of reducing methane from livestock highlights the broader complexity of climate solutions it requires, such as the integration of science, policy, economics and ethical considerations. By rethinking livestock systems as dynamic components of larger ecological and social networks, we can move from viewing emissions as a planetary risk toward designing resilient and sustainable solutions that benefit both people and the environment.

---

About the Author:

Nischal Raj Gautam is an agriculture student and youth climate advocate from Nepal. He works as a part-time educator and contributes to global initiatives, including the World Food Forum and Amnesty International. Nischal is eager to learn and collaborate with other passionate changemakers during the RYN Fellowship.

---

References

Arndt, C., Hristov, A. N., Price, W. J., McClelland, S. C., Pelaez, A. M., Cueva, S. F., Oh, J., Dijkstra, J., Bannink, A., Bayat, A. R., Crompton, L. A., Eugène, M. A., Enahoro, D., Kebreab, E., Kreuzer, M., McGee, M., Martin, C., Newbold, C. J., Reynolds, C. K., ... Yu, Z. (2022). 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, 119(20), e2111294119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111294119 

Assan, N. (2025). Breeding for a greener future: Selective breeding and crossbreeding approaches to minimize methane emissions in ruminant livestock. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), 12, 200-233. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800019

Blaustein-Rejto, D., & Gambino, C. (2023). We can't manage cattle methane without better measurements. The Breakthrough Institute. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/we-cant-manage-cattle-methane-without-better-measurements 

Calsamiglia, S., Busquet, M., Cardozo, P. W., Castillejos, L., & Ferret, A. (2007). Invited review: Essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science, 90(6), 2580-2595. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-644 

European Commission. (2024). Methane emissions - Energy. European Commission https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/carbon-management-and-fossil-fuels/methane-emissions_en 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Livestock solutions for climate change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/ 

Gendron, A., & Allen, K. D. (2022). Overview of diverse methyl/alkyl-coenzyme M reductases and considerations for their potential heterologous expression. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13, 867342. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.867342

Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., & Makkar, H. P. S. (Eds.). (2013). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production - A review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/4/i3288e/i3288e.pdf

Hegde, S. (2025). Cutting cattle methane through feed additives: Lessons from early adoption and the road ahead. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/technical-perspective/cattle-methane-inhibitors-early-adoption-next-steps

Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Giallongo, F., Frederick, T. W., Harper, M. T., Weeks, H. L., Branco, A. F., Moate, P. J., Deighton, M. H., Williams, S. R. O., Kindermann, M., & Duval, S. (2015). An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(34), 10663-10668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504124112 

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2002). Development and field evaluation of animal feed supplementation packages (IAEA-TECDOC-1294). https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1294_prn.pdf 

Jayanegara, A., Leiber, F., & Kreuzer, M. (2012). Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96(3), 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x 

Khan, F. A., Ali, A., Wu, D., Huang, C., Zulfiqar, H., Ali, M., Ahmed, B., Yousaf, M. R., Putri, E. M., Negara, W., Imran, M., & Pandupuspitasari, N. S. (2024). Editing microbes to mitigate enteric methane emissions in livestock. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 40(10), 300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-024-04103-x 

Kinley, R. D., Martinez-Fernandez, G., Matthews, M. K., de Nys, R., Magnusson, M., & Tomkins, N. W. (2020). Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120836

Lee, C., & Beauchemin, K. A. (2014). A review of feeding supplementary nitrate to ruminant animals: Nitrate toxicity, methane emissions, and production performance. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 94(4), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas-2014-069 

Manzanilla-Pech, C. I. V., Stephansen, R. B., Difford, G. F., Løvendahl, P., & Lassen, J. (2022). Selecting for feed efficient cows will help to reduce methane gas emissions. Frontiers in Genetics, 13, 885932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.885932 

Martínez-Álvaro, M., Auffret, M. D., Duthie, C. A., et al. (2022). Bovine host genome acts on rumen microbiome function linked to methane emissions. Communications Biology, 5(1), 350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03293-0 

Pitta, D. W., Indugu, N., Melgar, A., Hristov, A., Challa, K., Vecchiarelli, B., Hennessy, M., Narayan, K., Duval, S., Kindermann, M., & Walker, N. (2022). The effect of 3-nitrooxypropanol, a potent methane inhibitor, on ruminal microbial gene expression profiles in dairy cows. Microbiome, 10(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-022-01341-9 

Romero-Perez, A., Okine, E. K., McGinn, S. M., Guan, L. L., Oba, M., Duval, S. M., ... Beauchemin, K. A. (2015). Sustained reduction in methane production from long-term addition of 3-nitrooxypropanol to a beef cattle diet. Journal of Animal Science, 93(4), 1780-1791. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8726

Roque, B. M., Salwen, J. K., Kinley, R., & Kebreab, E. (2019). Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows' diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 132-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.193

Ryan, C. V., Pabiou, T., Purfield, D. C., Kelly, D. N., Murphy, C. P., & Evans, R. D. (2025). Genetic correlations between enteric methane and traits of economic importance in a beef finishing system. Journal of Animal Science, 103, skaf162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf162 

Tedeschi, L. O., Abdalla, A. L., Álvarez, C., Anuga, S. W., Arango, J., Beauchemin, K. A., ... Kebreab, E. (2022). Quantification of methane emitted by ruminants: A review of methods. Journal of Animal Science, 100(7), skac197. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac197

Ungerfeld, E. M. (2020). Metabolic hydrogen flows in rumen fermentation: Principles and possibilities of interventions. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 589. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00589

United Nations Environment Programme & Climate and Clean Air Coalition. (2021). Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions (Job No. DTI/2352/PA). United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/global-methane-assessment-full-report  

Vyas, D., Alemu, A. W., McGinn, S. M., Duval, S. M., Kindermann, M., & Beauchemin, K. A. (2018). The combined effects of supplementing monensin and 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emissions, growth rate, and feed conversion efficiency in beef cattle fed high-forage and high-grain diets. Journal of Animal Science, 96(7), 2923-2938. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky174 

Wanapat, M., Prachumchai, R., Dagaew, G., Matra, M., Phupaboon, S., Sommai, S., & Suriyapha, C. (2024). Potential use of seaweed as a dietary supplement to mitigate enteric methane emission in ruminants. Science of The Total Environment, 931, 173015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173015

Wilson, R. T., Ehui, S., & Mack, S. (Eds.). (1995). Livestock development strategies for low income countries (Proceedings of the Joint FAO/ILRI Roundtable). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & International Livestock Research Institute. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e019b568-6fd8-4b4e-a490-0f35969f44ee/content