Marginal costs of abating greenhouse gases in the global ruminant livestock sector

  • B. HendersonEmail author
  • A. Falcucci
  • A. Mottet
  • L. Early
  • B. Werner
  • H. Steinfeld
  • P. Gerber
Original Article


Livestock [inclusive of ruminant species, namely cattle (Bos Taurus and Bos indicus), sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), and buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis), and non-ruminant species, namely pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) and chickens (Gallus domesticus)] are both affected by climate change and contribute as much as 14.5 % of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, most of which is from ruminant animals (Gerber et al. 2013). This study aims to estimate the marginal costs of reducing GHG emissions for a selection of practices in the ruminant livestock sector (inclusive of the major ruminant species—cattle, sheep, and goats) globally. It advances on previous assessments by calculating marginal costs rather than commonly reported average costs of abatement and can thus provide insights about abatement responses at different carbon prices. We selected the most promising abatement options based on their effectiveness and feasibility. Improved grazing management and legume sowing are the main practices assessed in grazing systems. The urea (CO(NH2)2) treatment of crop straws is the main practice applied in mixed crop–livestock systems, while the feeding of dietary lipids and nitrates are confined to more intensive production systems. These practices were estimated to reduce emissions by up to 379 metric megatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions per year (MtCO2-eq yr−1). Two thirds of this reduction was estimated to be possible at a carbon price of 20 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 equivalent emissions ($20 tCO2-eq−1). This study also provides strategic guidance as to where abatement efforts could be most cost effectively targeted. For example, improved grazing management was particularly cost effective in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, while legume sowing appeared to work best in Western Europe and Latin America.


Carbon sequestration Grazing Climate change mitigation Feed additives 



This research was supported by grants from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme, and by the AnimalChange project of the European Union’s Seventh Framework for Research and Innovation funding programme (FP7/2007–2013, Grant Agreement no. 266018).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research paper is in compliance with the ethical standards of this journal. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to funding, institutional arrangements, or any related matters. All funding related to this research has been disclosed in the acknowledgements section above. Furthermore, consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors as from responsible authorities at the organization where the work has been carried out.


  1. Alhassan W, Aliyu S (1991) Studies on urea-ammonia treatment of maize straw: treatment method and potential for dry season feeding of cattle in Northern Nigeria. Anim Feed Sci Tech 33:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach R, DeAngelo B, Rose S et al (2008) Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Agr Econ 38:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchemin K, McGinn S, Petit H (2007) Methane abatement strategies for cattle: lipid supplementation of diets. Can J Anim Sci 87:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchemin K, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F et al (2008) Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust J Exp Agr 48:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauchemin K, McGinn S, Benchaar C et al (2009) Crushed sunflower, flax, or canola seeds in lactating dairy cow diets: effects on methane production, rumen fermentation, and milk production. J Dairy Sci 92:2118–2127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biermacher J, Reuter R, Kering M et al (2012) Expected economic potential of substituting legumes for nitrogen in Bermuda grass pastures. Crop Sci 52:1923–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biswas M, Hoque M, Kibria M et al (2010) Field trial and demonstration of urea molasses straw technology of feeding lactating animals. Bangladesh Res Pub J 3:1129–1132Google Scholar
  8. Brown W, Adjei M (1995) Urea ammoniation effects on the feeding value of guinea grass (Panicum maximum) hay. J Anim Sci 73:3085–3093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chemjong P (1991) Economic value of urea-treated straw fed to lactating buffaloes during the dry season in Nepal. Trop Anim Health Pro 23:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choufang D, Shurong S (2013) Analysis of the development of mechanized fertilization and specialized services in Xinfu District of Xinzhou City. Modern Agricultural Technology (Xiandai Nongye Keji) 2013(2):299–300Google Scholar
  11. Coates D, Mannetje L (1990) Productivity of cows and calves on native and improved pasture in subcoastal, subtropical Queensland. Trop Grasslands 24:46–54Google Scholar
  12. Conant RT (2010) Challenges and opportunities for carbon sequestration in grassland systems: a technical report on grassland management and climate change mitigation. Prepared for the plant production and protection division food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Integrated Crop Management Vol. 9Google Scholar
  13. CUSA (Uruguayan Chamber of Agricultural Services) (2013) Database for prices of agricultural work. Cited 13 December 2013
  14. Department of Environment (2015) Emissions Reduction Fund and Carbon Farming Initiative. Cited 10 June 2015
  15. DPI (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales) (2012a) Winter annual pasture: sub clover based-establishment. Farm budgets and costs. Cited 20 June 2013
  16. DPI (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales) (2012b) Sub clover ley pasture. Farm budgets and costs. Cited 20 June 2013
  17. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Elbasha E, Thornton P, Tarawali G (1999) An ex post economic impact assessment of planted forages in West Africa. ILRI Impact Assessment Series 2, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (1997) Treatment of crop residues and other low quality forage.
  20. FAO (2007) Gridded Livestock of the World 2007, RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. FAO (2011a) Global Livestock Production Systems, RomeGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (2011b) Climate change mitigation finance for smallholder agriculture. A guide book to harvesting soil carbon sequestration benefits, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2013) In: Gerber P, Henderson B, Makkar H (eds) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production—a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 177, RomeGoogle Scholar
  24. FAOSTAT (2013) Prices. FAO, Rome. Cited 29 July 2013
  25. Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Strid I (2008) LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel- miljöpåverkan i samband med production. SIK rapport no. 772, version 1.1Google Scholar
  26. Frank DA, Pontes AW, McFarlane KJ (2012) Controls on soil organic carbon stocks and turnover among North American ecosystems. Ecosystems 15:604–615Google Scholar
  27. Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderson B et al (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock—a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. Grainger C, Beauchemin K (2011) Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamid M, Haque M, Saadullah M (1983) Water hyacinth as a supplement for ammoniated rice straw. In: Davis C (ed) Maximum livestock production from minimum land. Bangladesh Agricultural University, MymensinghGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson B, Gerber P, Hilinski T et al (2015) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: modelling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agr Ecosyst Environ 207:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hernandez M, Argel PJ, Ibrahim MA, Mannetje L (1995) Pasture production, diet selection and liveweight gains of cattle grazing brachiaria brizantha with or without arachis pintoi at two stocking rates in the atlantic zone of Costa Rica. Tropical Grasslands 29:134–141Google Scholar
  32. Herrero M, Conant R, Havlik Petr et al. (2015) Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat Clim Change (in press)Google Scholar
  33. Holland E, Parton W, Detling J et al (1992) Physiological responses of plant populations to herbivory and their consequences for ecosystem nutrient flow. Am Nat 140:685–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holmann F (1999) Ex-ante analysis of new forage alternatives for farms with dual-purpose cattle in Peru, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Livest Res Rural Dev 11.
  35. IIASA/FAO (2012) Global Agro-ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  36. ILO (International Labour Organization) (2013) LABORSTA Internet. International Labour Organization, Switzerland. Cited 18 July 2013
  37. Index Mundi (2013) Commodities data. Cited 4 September 2013
  38. IPCC (2006) In: Eggleston HS, Buenida L, Miwa K, Nagara T, Tanabe K (eds) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Islam M, Huque K (1995) On farm evaluation of urea molassesed straw (UMS) feeding to lactating cows. Asian Austral J Anim 8:523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jabbar M, Muzafar H, Khattak F et al (2009) Simplification of urea treatment method of wheat straw for its better adoption by the farmers. S Afr J Anim Sci 39:58–61Google Scholar
  42. Jones R (1994) The Role of Leucaena in Improving the Productivity of Grazing Cattle. Available via FAO. Cited 2 August 2013
  43. Kayastha TB, Dutta S, Kayastha RB, Deka RS (2012) Growth performance and nutrient utilization of growing calves with urea treated wheat straw based ration. Indian J Dairy Sci 65:435–438Google Scholar
  44. Kumarasuntharam V, Jayasuriya M, Joubert M et al (1984) The effect of method of urea-ammonia treatment on the subsequent utilization of rice straw by draught cattle. In: Doyle P (ed) The utilization of fibrous agricultural residues as animal feeds. School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, pp 124–130Google Scholar
  45. MacLeod N, Cook S, Walsh P (1991) An economic comparison of three legume establishment technologies for speargrass dominant pastures. Trop Grasslands 25:225–226Google Scholar
  46. MacLeod N, Cook S, Walsh P, Clem R (1993) Economic considerations for pasture establishment. Trop Grasslands 27:396–405Google Scholar
  47. MacLeod N, Cook S (2004) The economic performance of steers grazing black speargrass pastures oversown with legumes in south Queensland, Australia. Trop Grasslands 38:140–153Google Scholar
  48. Makkar H, Singh B (1987) Kinetics of urea hydrolysis and binding of ammonia to wheat straw during ammoniation by urea. J Dairy Sci 70:1313–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Makkar H, Aregheore E, Becker K (1999) Effect of saponins and plant extracts containing saponins on the recovery of ammonia during urea ammoniation of wheat straw and fermentation kinetics of the treated straw. JAgric Sci 132:313–321Google Scholar
  50. Mannetje L, Jones R (1990) Pastures and animal productivity of buffel grass with Siratro, lucerne and nitrogen fertilizer. Trop Grasslands 24:269–81Google Scholar
  51. McKinsey & Company (2009) Pathways to a low-carbon economy: version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. McKinsey & Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Melillo JM, McGuire AD, Kicklighter DW et al (1993) Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller C, Stockwell T (1991) Augmenting native pasture with legumes. Trop Grasslands 25:98–103Google Scholar
  54. Min B, Barry T, Attwood G et al (2003) The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Anim Feed Sci Tech 106:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitchell TD, Jones PD (2005) An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int J Climatol 25:693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moate P, Williams S, Grainger C et al (2011) Influence of cold-pressed canola, brewers grains and hominy meal as dietary supplements suitable for reducing enteric methane emissions from lactating dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Tech 166–167:254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moran D, MacLeod M, Wall E et al (2011) Marginal abatement cost curves for UK agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. J Agr Econ 62:93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Narayanan B, Walmsley T (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 Data Base. Available via Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
  59. Nianogo J, Louis S, Solaiman S et al (1999) Effect of urea treatment on digestibility and utilization of sorghum straw. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 3:78–85Google Scholar
  60. Nutt B (2012) Low cost high quality pastures for cropping. Grains Research & Development Corporation Update Paper, Australia. Available via GRDC. Cited 11 July 2013
  61. Nyambati E, Sollenberger L, Kunkle W (2003) Feed intake and lactation performance of dairy cows offered napier grass supplemented with legume hay. Livest Prod Sci 83:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci et al (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains—a global life cycle assessment. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  63. Parton W, Hartman M, Ojima D et al (1998) DAYCENT: its land surface submodel: description and testing. Glob Planet Chang 19:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parton W, Schimel D, Cole C et al (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1173–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pellerin S, Bamière L, Angers D et al (2013) Quelle contribution de l’agriculture français à la reduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre? Synthèse du rapport d’étude. INRA, FranceGoogle Scholar
  66. Perdok H, Thamotharam M, Blom J et al (1982) Practical experiences with urea ensiled straw in Sri Lanka. In: Preston T (ed) Maximum livestock production from minimum land. Proceedings of the third seminar held at Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. Joydebpur, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
  67. Perdok H, Muttettuwegama G, Kaasslhieter G et al (1984) Production responses of lactating or growing ruminants fed urea-ammonia treated paddy straw with or without supplements. In: Doyle P (ed) The utilization of fibrous agricultural residues as animal feeds. School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, pp 213–230Google Scholar
  68. Pineiro GJ, Paruelo M, Oesterheld M, Jobbagy EG (2010) Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rangeland Ecol Manage 63:109–119Google Scholar
  69. PCC (Philippine Carabao Center) Urea-molasses treatment of rice straw. Technology brief series No. 10. Available via PCC. Cited 4 December 2012
  70. Prasad R, Reddy M, Reddy G (1998) Effect of feeding baled and stacked urea treated rice straw on the performance of crossbred cows. Anim Feed Sci Tech 73:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rabiee A, Breinhild K, Scott W et al (2012) Effect of fat additions to diets of dairy cattle on milk production and components: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Dairy Sci 95:3225–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reynolds CA, Jackson TJ, Rawls WJ (2000) Estimating soil water-holding capacities by linking the Food and Agriculture Organization soil map of the world with global pedon databases and continuous pedotransfer functions. Water Resour Res 36:3653–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rochon J, Doyle C, Greef J et al (2004) Grazing legumes in Europe: a review of their status, management, benefits, research needs and future prospects. Grass Forage Sci 59:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saadullah M, Haque M, Dolberg F (1982) Treated and untreated rice straw for growing cattle. Trop Anim Prod 7:20–25Google Scholar
  75. Schiere J, Nell A (1993) Feeding of urea treated straw in the tropics. I. A review of its technical principles and economics. Anim Feed Sci Tech 43:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schulte R, Crosson P, Donnellan T et al (2012) A marginal abatement cost curve for Irish agriculture. Teagasc submission to the National Climate Policy Development Consultation. Teagasc, Oak ParkGoogle Scholar
  77. Sharma K, Dutta N, Naulia U (2004) An on-farm appraisal of feeding urea-treated straw to buffaloes during late pregnancy and lactation in a mixed farming system. Livest Res Rural Dev 16(11). Retrieved August 14, 115, from
  78. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2007) Agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidsons O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  79. Soussana JF, Tallec T, Blanfort V (2010) Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal 4(03):334–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stocker TF (2013) The closing door of climate targets. Science 339(6117):280–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tsega W, Asefa H, Eshetie T et al (2012) On-farm evaluation of urea treated finger millet straw and concentrate feed supplementation for sheep fattening in Bahir Dar Zuria district, Ethiopia. Wudpecker J Agric Res 1:235–237Google Scholar
  83. Uddin M, Shahjalal M, Kabir F et al (2002) Beneficiary effect of feeding urea-molasses treated straw on buffalo cows in Bangladesh. OnLine J Biol Sci 2:384–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Undersander D, Laboski C (2013) Late summer planting legumes to produce nitrogen credits for next year. Available via University of Wisconsin. Cited 12 July 2013
  85. US EPA (2013) Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases: 2010–2030. EPA 430-R-13-011. US EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  86. van Zijderveld S (2011) Dietary strategies to reduce methane emissions from ruminants., Dissertation, Wageningen UR Google Scholar
  87. van Man N, Wiktorsson H (2001) The effect of replacing grass with urea treated fresh rice straw in dairy cow diet. Asian Austral J Anim 14:1090–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. VCS (2014) Methodology for Sustainable Grassland Management (SGM). Available via Verified Carbon Standard. Cited 14 October 2014
  89. Waiss A, Guggolz J, Kohler G et al (1972) Improving digestibility of straws for ruminant feed by aqueous ammonia. Journal of Animal Science 35:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Walli T (2010) Urea treatment of straws. In: FAO 2011, Successes and failures with animal nutrition practices and technologies in developing countries. Proceedings of the FAO Electronic Conference, 1–30 September 2010, Rome, Italy. Makkar H (ed) FAO Animal Production and Health Proceedings. No. 11, RomeGoogle Scholar
  91. Wanapat M, Polyorach S, Boonnop K et al (2009) Effects of treating rice straw with urea or urea and calcium hydroxide upon intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and milk yield of dairy cows. Livest Sci 125:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Whittle L, Hug B, White S et al (2013) Costs and potential of agricultural emissions abatement in Australia., Technical report 13.2. Government of Australia, ABARES Google Scholar
  93. You L, Crespo S, Guo Z et al. (2010) Spatial Production Allocation Model (SPAM) 2000, version 3. Release 2. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Henderson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Falcucci
    • 1
  • A. Mottet
    • 1
  • L. Early
    • 1
  • B. Werner
    • 1
  • H. Steinfeld
    • 1
  • P. Gerber
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.UN Food and Agriculture OrganizationRomeItaly
  2. 2.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Queensland Bioscience PrecinctSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Animal Production Systems groupWageningen UniversityWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations