Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb 29;14(5):763.
doi: 10.3390/ani14050763.

Quantifying the Impact of Different Dietary Rumen Modulating Strategies on Enteric Methane Emission and Productivity in Ruminant Livestock: A Meta-Analysis

Affiliations

Quantifying the Impact of Different Dietary Rumen Modulating Strategies on Enteric Methane Emission and Productivity in Ruminant Livestock: A Meta-Analysis

Bulelani N Pepeta et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

A meta-analysis was conducted with an aim to quantify the beneficial effects of nine different dietary rumen modulating strategies which includes: the use of plant-based bioactive compounds (saponin, tannins, oils, and ether extract), feed additives (nitrate, biochar, seaweed, and 3-nitroxy propanol), and diet manipulation (concentrate feeding) on rumen fermentation, enteric methane (CH4) production (g/day), CH4 yield (g/kg dry matter intake) and CH4 emission intensity (g/kg meat or milk), and production performance parameters (the average daily gain, milk yield and milk quality) of ruminant livestock. The dataset was constructed by compiling global data from 110 refereed publications on in vivo studies conducted in ruminants from 2005 to 2023 and anlayzed using a meta-analytical approach.. Of these dietary rumen manipulation strategies, saponin and biochar reduced CH4 production on average by 21%. Equally, CH4 yield was reduced by 15% on average in response to nitrate, oils, and 3-nitroxy propanol (3-NOP). In dairy ruminants, nitrate, oils, and 3-NOP reduced the intensity of CH4 emission (CH4 in g/kg milk) on average by 28.7%. Tannins and 3-NOP increased on average ruminal propionate and butyrate while reducing the acetate:propionate (A:P) ratio by 12%, 13.5% and 13%, respectively. Oils increased propionate by 2% while reducing butyrate and the A:P ratio by 2.9% and 3.8%, respectively. Use of 3-NOP increased the production of milk fat (g/kg DMI) by 15% whereas oils improved the yield of milk fat and protein (kg/d) by 16% and 20%, respectively. On the other hand, concentrate feeding improved dry matter intake and milk yield (g/kg DMI) by 23.4% and 19%, respectively. However, feed efficiency was not affected by any of the dietary rumen modulating strategies. Generally, the use of nitrate, saponin, oils, biochar and 3-NOP were effective as CH4 mitigating strategies, and specifically oils and 3-NOP provided a co-benefit of improving production parameters in ruminant livestock. Equally concentrate feeding improved production parameters in ruminant livestock without any significant effect on enteric methane emission. Therefore, it is advisable to refine further these strategies through life cycle assessment or modelling approaches to accurately capture their influence on farm-scale production, profitability and net greenhouse gas emissions. The adoption of the most viable, region-specific strategies should be based on factors such as the availability and cost of the strategy in the region, the specific goals to be achieved, and the cost-benefit ratio associated with implementing these strategies in ruminant livestock production systems.

Keywords: methane emission; mitigation; production performance; ruminant livestock.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of article selection.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gerber P., Opio C. Greenhouse Gas Emmission from Ruminant Supply Chains: A Global Life Cycle Assessment. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Animal Production and Health Division.
    1. MacLeod M.J., Vellinga T., Opio C., Falcucci A., Tempio G., Henderson B., Makkar H., Mottet A., Robinson T., Steinfeld H., et al. Invited Review: A Position on the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) Animal. 2018;12:383–397. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117001847. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Niu M., Kebreab E., Hristov A.N., Oh J., Arndt C., Bannink A., Bayat A.R., Brito A.F., Boland T., Casper D., et al. Prediction of Enteric Methane Production, Yield, and Intensity in Dairy Cattle Using an Intercontinental Database. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018;24:3368–3389. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14094. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tseten T., Sanjorjo R.A., Kwon M., Kim S.W. Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminant Animals. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022;32:269–277. doi: 10.4014/jmb.2202.02019. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hristov A.N., Melgar A., Wasson D., Arndt C. Symposium Review: Effective Nutritional Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane in Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2022;105:8543–8557. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21398. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources