review · Resources Environment and Sustainability
Dairy cattle feeding strategies significantly influence greenhouse gas emissions and milk yields across global production systems. A meta-analysis of data across fifteen countries examined the impacts of diet composition, feeding regimes, breeding, and experimental measurement tools on methane and ammonia outputs. Mineral feed additives provided substantial benefits, raising milk yields by 90 percent while reducing methane production by 33 percent. Feed additive dosages between 1 and 4 percent improved milk yield by 47 percent and reduced methane by 58 percent, although the safety profile of 3-nitrooxypropanol remains contested. Total mixed ration systems mitigated methane more effectively than partial mixed rations, despite the latter driving higher milk outputs. Holstein cattle combined improved productivity with reduced methane, while crop forage effectively lowered ammonia emissions compared to grass forage.
Livestock farming faces the dual challenge of meeting global dairy demand while curbing potent greenhouse gases like methane and ammonia. Identifying specific nutritional interventions, such as tailored mineral supplements and forage types, allows dairy farmers to cut agricultural emissions substantially without sacrificing milk production, helping the sector align with broader climate-neutral targets.
These findings directly inform livestock feed manufacturers, dairy farm managers, and animal nutritionists seeking verified formulation strategies. Interventions involving mineral supplementation and crop forages rely on existing agricultural inputs, representing near-market, immediately applicable practices. However, specific additives like 3-nitrooxypropanol require further safety resolution before wider commercial deployment.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Studies on the effects of cattle feeding strategies on greenhouse gas emissions are fragmented and cannot provide a global comparison of the feeding management practices that lead to optimal production while substantially reducing methane (CH 4 ) and ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions. The present study explains variability in enteric CH 4 , NH 3 mitigations and cattle milk performance due to several diet composition and structure, feed management, breeding, animal experimental designs and CH 4 measurement tools. Effects from 80 treatments were meta-analyzed from an initial 4394 screened papers and we retained 31 articles distributed across 15 countries on four continents. Minerals in feed additive types increased milk yield the most (90%) and, concomitantly, reduced CH 4 production by 33%. Feed additive dosage ranging between 1-4% also contributed to increasing milk yield by 47% while reducing CH 4 by 58%. Meanwhile the impact of 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) feed additive on health safety is still controversial. Although a partial mixed ration system highly contributed to milk yield (102%), it did not contribute to CH 4 reduction as much as a total mixed ration system (39%). The highest CH 4 reduction levels were recorded with GreenFeed (80%) and a rotating experimental design (37%). The Holstein cattle breed was more productive with an increase of 46% of milk production while reducing CH 4 by 34%. Grass forage increased NH 3 by 5% while crop forage reduced it by 21%. Agriculture can effectively reduce its emissions and contribute to climate-neutral goals as part of a coordinated, global effort involving multiple sectors. • Efforts to reduce enteric greenhouse gases emission whereas increasing animal production is a global challenge • Minerals supplementation increased milk yield by 90% while methane production reduced by 33% • Overall, the feed additive dose of 1-4% increased milk yield by 47% and reduced methane production by 58% • Holstein breed was more productive, increasing milk yield by 46% and decreasing methane by 34% • Grass forage increased ammonia by 5% while crop forage reduced it by 21%.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.resenv.2025.100271
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
