Climatic Change

, Volume 137, Issue 3–4, pp 467–480 | Cite as

Mitigation of enteric methane emissions from global livestock systems through nutrition strategies



Enteric methane (CH4) generated in the gastrointestinal tract of ruminant represents the source of the greatest direct greenhouse gas (GHG) released from the livestock sector. We evaluated the global potential reduction of enteric CH4 emissions released from dairy cattle through amendment of their traditional diets in 183 countries aggregated to 11 regions. Amending dairy cattle diets involves increasing the concentration of lipid (up to 6 %) and decreasing the concentration of fiber, without affecting the total gross energy intake (GEI). Enteric CH4 emissions were calculated by using a mathematical model developed to include dietary intervention. In 2012, we found a global potential reduction of 15.7 % of enteric CH4 emissions from dairy cattle. The highest potential reduction per unit of milk produced occurs in Africa followed by South America and Asia (55, 46 and 34 %, respectively). The amended diets proposed here, mostly affect the regions in which demand for animal source protein will be greatest in the future. Because lipid supplementation may result in an indirect effect on CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from manure management, they were also estimated. Methane emissions from manure management would decrease by 13 %, while N2O emissions would increase by 21 % due to diet amendment. On balance, the total potential reduction of GHG emissions through diet amendment was 104 MtCO2eq annually. Moreover, amending diets would increase global milk production by 13 %. This study evaluated a global potential reduction of GHG emissions directly released from dairy cattle, however, future advancements dealing with the analysis of the upstream emissions associated to these diet changes are needed.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1686_MOESM1_ESM.docx (448 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 448 kb)
10584_2016_1686_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (33 kb)
ESM 2(XLSX 33 kb)


  1. Alexandratos N, Brunsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12–03. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchemin KA, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister TA (2008a) Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aus J Exp Agric 48:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM, Grainger C (2008b) Reducing methane emissions from dairy cows. Adv Dairy Tech 20:79–93Google Scholar
  4. Beyer M et al (2003) Rostock feed evaluation system: reference numbers of feed value and requirement on the base of net energy, pp. 294–351Google Scholar
  5. Caro D, Davis SJ, Bastianoni S, Caldeira K (2014a) Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Clim Chang 126:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caro D, LoPresti A, Davis SJ, Bastianoni S, Caldeira K (2014b) CH4 and N2O embodied in international trade of meat. Environ Res Lett. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114005 Google Scholar
  7. Doreau M, Chillard Y (1997) Digestion and metabolism of dietary fat in farm animals. Br J Nutr 78:15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doreau M, Ferlay A, Rochette Y, Martin C (2014) Effects of dehydrated Lucerne and soy bean meal on milk production and consumption, nutrient digestion, and methane and nitrogen losses in dairy cows receiving two different forages. Animal 8(3):420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisler MC et al (2014) Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507:32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis JL et al (2007) Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. J Dairy Sci 90:3456–3467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EPA (2012) Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions: 1990–2030. Summary report. United States Environmental Protections AgencyGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (2014) Interactive units converter. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  13. Eugene’ M et al (2011) Dietary linseed and starch supplementation decreases methane production of fattening bulls. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (2009) The state of food and agriculture. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Final Report. 180 pg. Available at:
  15. FAO (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: a life cycle assessment. Prepared by P. Gerber, T. Vellinga, C. Opio, B. Henderson, and H. Steinfeld. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. FAO (2011) The state of food insecurity in the world (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). Recent trends in world food commodity 11–20Google Scholar
  17. FAO (2015) FAOSTAT online database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber PJ et al (2013) Tackling change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerosa S, Skoet J (2012) Milk availability: trends in production and demand and medium-term outlook. Agricultural Development Economic Division, FAO, 1–38Google Scholar
  20. Golub AA et al (2012) Global climate policy impacts on livestock, land use, livelihoods, and food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(52):20894–20899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Granger C, Beauchemin KA (2011) Can enteric emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granger C, Clarke T, Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM, Eckard RJ (2008) Supplementation with whole cottonseed reduces methane emissions and increases milk production of dairy cows offered a forage and cereal grai diet. Aust J Exp Agric 48:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrero M, Thorton PK, Gerber P, Reid R (2009) Livestock livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-off. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrero M et al (2016) Greenhouse mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat Clim Chang. doi:10.1038/nclimate2925 Google Scholar
  25. Hollmann M, Beede DK (2012) Comparison of effects of dietary coconut oil and animal fat blend on lactational performance of Holstein cows fed a high-starch diet. J Dairy Sci 95:1484–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hristov AN (2012) Historic, pre-European settlement, and present-day contribution of wild ruminants to enteric methane emissions in the United States. J Anim Sci 90:1371–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hristov AN, Vander Pol M, Agle M, Zaman S, Schneider C, Ndegwa P, Vaddella VK, Johnson K, Shingfield KJ, Karnati KR (2009) Effect of lauric acid and coconut oil on ruminal fermentation, digestion, ammonia losses from manure, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 92:5561–5582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hristov AN et al (2013) Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. J Anim Sci 91:5045–5069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (2006) Guideline for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC (2013) The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson KA, Johnson DE (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci 73:2483–2492Google Scholar
  32. Jordan E, Lovett DK, Hawkins M, Callan JJ, O’Mara FP (2006) The effect of varying levels of coconut oil on intake, digestibility and methane output from continental cross beef heifers. Anim Sci 82:859–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kebreab E, Johnson KA, Archibeque SL, Pape D, Wirth T (2008) Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:2738–2748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, Tricarico JM (2014) Invited review: enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J Dairy Sci 97:3231–3261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Machmuller A, Ossowsky DA, Wanner M, Kreuzer M (1998) Potential of various fatty feeds to reduce methane release from rumen fermentation in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 71:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin C et al (2011) Methane output and rumen microbiota in dairy cows in response to long-term supplementation with linseed or rapeseed of grass silage- or pasture-based diets. Proc N Z Soc Anim Prod 71:243–247Google Scholar
  37. Moares LE, Strathe AB, Fadel JG, Casper DP, Kebreab E (2014) Prediction of enteric methane emissions from cattle. Glob Chang Biol 20:2140–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montes F et al (2013) Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II A review of manure management mitigation options. J Anim Sci 91:5070–5094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moraes LE et al (2015) Multivariate and univariate analysis of energy balance data from lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 98(6):4012–4029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NRC (2001) Nutrient requirement of dairy cattle. Seven revised edition (National Research Council)Google Scholar
  41. Opio C et al (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmquist DL (1988) The feeding value of fat. Feed science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 293–311Google Scholar
  43. Parodi PW (1999) Conjugated linoleic acid and other anticarcinogenic agents of bovine milk fat. J Dairy Sci 82:1339–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rabiee AR 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
  45. REDD+. United Nations collaborative program on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countriesGoogle Scholar
  46. Reed KF, Moraes LE, Casper DP, Kebreab E (2015) Predicting nitrogen excretion from cattle. J Dairy Sci 98:3025–3035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson TP et al (2011) Global livestock production systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  48. Schroeder GF, Gagliostro GA, Bargo F, Delahoy JE, Muller LD (2004) Effects of fat supplementation on milk production and composition by dairy cows on pasture: a review. Livest Prod Sci 86:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinfeld H et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  50. Taghinejad M, Nikkhah A, Sadeghi AA, Risali G, Chamani M (2009) Effects of gamma irradiation on chemical composition, antinutritional factors, ruminal degradation and in vitro protein digestibility of full fat soybean. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 22:534–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tubiello FN et al (2013) The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ Res Lett 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dario Caro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ermias Kebreab
    • 2
  • Frank M. Mitloehner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations