/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in January 2024
Fiche created in November 2024
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of LIVESTOCK FEEDING TECHNIQUES found in a review of 60 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 1718 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 6 to 430. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
- Description:
- Livestock feeding techniques have been classified in three main categories of interventions used to improve animal feeding management and/or to reduce emissions to the environment, according to the classification reported in Arndt at al., 2022[2]. The three main categories are: 1) Animal and feed management; 2) Diet formulation; 2) Rumen manipulation, each of which was then further classified into several sub-categories.
- Animal and feed management is defined here as the feeding techniques applied at pasture and the processing of feed. Animal and feed management includes the sub-categories: feed processing, improving pasture management, increasing feeding level, increasing forage quality, total mixed ration versus grazing.
- Diet manipulation is defined here as the feeding techniques related to the use of a specific feed material or the share of a specific component (es. forage). Diet formulation includes the sub-categories: use of by-products, decreasing forage to concentrate ratio, use of legume, low crude protein diet, minerals and salts, oils and fats, oilseeds, silages, tanniferous forages, urea.
- Rumen manipulation is defined here as the feeding techniques related to the change in the rumen condition using additives, defaunation or electron sinks. Rumen manipulation includes the sub-categories: additives, defaunation and electron sinks. Additives includes several sub-categories, such as: acidifiers, aminoacids, biochar, biopolimers (chitosan), CH4 inhibitors (including 3-nitrooxypropanol and bromochloromethane), enzymes, ionophores (including monensis), organic acids, probiotics (bacteria and yeasts), seaweeds, secondary plant compounds (including essential oils, extracts, flavonoids, phenols, saponins and tannins). Electron sinks include as sub-categories fumaric acid and nitrate.
- Due to the numerous sub-categories in each category, the results are provided here at an aggregated level, showing results for the sub-categories described below. More disaggregated results are provided in the single fiches on each impact.
- Please, note that this is not an exhaustive list of livestock feeding techniques but of those found in the meta-analysis literature that meet the requirements to be included in our review.
- Livestock feeding techniques have been classified in three main categories of interventions used to improve animal feeding management and/or to reduce emissions to the environment, according to the classification reported in Arndt at al., 2022[2]. The three main categories are: 1) Animal and feed management; 2) Diet formulation; 2) Rumen manipulation, each of which was then further classified into several sub-categories.
- Key descriptors:
- This review includes results on both in vitro and in vivo In vivo results come from experiments on several animal categories: dairy and beef cattle, buffalo, swine, poultry, sheep and goats. In many cases, livestock type is reported as ruminants or small ruminants.
- This review includes only synthesis research papers where the comparisons between livestock feeding techniques and their corresponding controls come from the same field experiment. Studies based on meta-regressions were included only if a control and one or more treatments were clearly defined.
- This review does not include techniques included in Arndt 2022 related to genetic selection, improving health, optimising temperature since they are not related to feeding. Then, it does not include farming practices related to grazing intensity and grassland management (i.e. nitrogen fertilisation) since these are systematically analyses in other sets of fiches of this WIKI (Grazing management and grassland management).This review does not include the impact of livestock feeding techniques on animal welfare and animal health.
2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impacts of livestock feeding techniques compared to a livestock system without the corresponding technique, including three groups of interventions: animal and feed management (Table 1a), diet formulation (Table 1b) and rumen manipulation (Table 1c).
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 60 selected synthesis papers, 32 included studies conducted in Europe, and 53 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1a: Summary of effects for Animal and feed management. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||||||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | Air pollutants emissions | Feed processing | No feed processing | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Animal production | Animal production | Animal and feed management (aggregated) | No feed management | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Feed processing | No feed processing | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Improving pasture management | Not improving pasture management | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
Increasing feeding level | Not increasing feeding level | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Increasing forage quality | Not increasing forage quality | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
Total mixed ration feeding | Not total mixed ration | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | GHG emissions | Animal and feed management (aggregated) | No feed management | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Feed processing | No feed processing | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
Improving pasture management | Not improving pasture management | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Increasing feeding level | Not increasing feeding level | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Increasing forage quality | Not increasing forage quality | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Total mixed ration feeding | Not total mixed ration | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decrease Nutrient excretion | Nutrient excretion | Feed processing | No feed processing | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Table 1b: Summary of effects for Diet formulation. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||||||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | Air pollutants emissions | Low crude protein diet | No low crude protein diet | 5 | 0 | 2 | 3 (1) |
Minerals and salts | No minerals and salts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Oils and fats | No oils and fats | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Increase Animal production | Animal production | Diet formulation (aggregated) | No techniques on diet formulation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By products | No by products | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | ||
Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | No decrease in forage to concentrate ratio | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Legumes | No legumes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Low crude protein diet | No low crude protein diet | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | ||
Minerals and salts | No minerals and salts | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Oils and fats | No oils and fats | 0 | 4 (3) | 4 (3) | 1 | ||
Oilseeds | No oilseeds | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
Seaweeds | No seaweeds | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | ||
Silages | No silages | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Tanniferous forages | No tanniferous forages | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Urea | No urea | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Decrease Energy use (LCA) | Energy use (LCA) | Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | Not decreasing forage to concentrate ration | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Eutrophication (LCA) | Eutrophication potential | Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | Not decreasing forage to concentrate ration | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease GHG emissions | GHG emissions | Diet formulation (aggregated) | No techniques on diet formulation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By products | No by products | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | No decrease in forage to concentrate ratio | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
Legumes | No legumes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Low crude protein diet | No low crude protein diet | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 (0) | ||
Minerals and salts | No minerals and salts | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Oils and fats | No oils and fats | 7 (6) | 0 | 4 (3) | 2 | ||
Oilseeds | No oilseeds | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Seaweeds | No seaweeds | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Silages | No silages | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Tanniferous forages | No tanniferous forages | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Urea | No urea | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decrease Global warming potential (LCA) | Global warming potential (LCA) | Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | Not decreasing forage to concentrate ration | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Urea | No urea | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease Land use (LCA) | Land use | Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | Not decreasing forage to concentrate ration | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease Nutrient excretion | Nutrient excretion | By products | No by products | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Low crude protein diet | No low crude protein diet | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Minerals and salts | No minerals and salts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||
Silages | No silages | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
Urea | No urea | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease Odour emissions | Odour | Low crude protein diet | No low crude protein diet | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Minerals and salts | No minerals and salts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Table 1c: Summary of effects for Rumen manipulation. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||||||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | Air pollutants emissions | Additives | No additives | 3 | 0 | 3 (2) | 4 (2) |
Electron sinks | No electron sinks | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Increase Animal production | Animal production | Rumen manipulation (aggregated) | No rumen manipulation | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Additives | No additives | 15 (13) | 10 (8) | 16 (14) | 1 | ||
Defaunation | No defaunation | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Electron sinks | No electron sinks | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||
Decrease Energy use (LCA) | Energy use (LCA) | Decreasing forage-to-concentrate ratio | Not decreasing forage to concentrate ration | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease GHG emissions | GHG emissions | Rumen manipulation (aggregated) | No rumen manipulation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Additives | No additives | 25 (22) | 1 | 23 | 5 (4) | ||
Defaunation | No defaunation | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
Electron sinks | No electron sinks | 9 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
Decrease Global warming potential (LCA) | Global warming potential (LCA) | Additives | No additives | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease Nutrient excretion | Nutrient excretion | Additives | No additives | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 |
Decrease Odour emissions | Odour | Additives | No additives | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Air pollutants emissions | Animal type (Ref50), Dose (Ref40, Ref50 and Ref54) |
Animal production | Animal age (Ref26), Animal breed (Ref31), Animal weight (Ref33), Days in milk (dairy cows) (Ref31), Dose (Ref30, Ref40, Ref17, Ref17, Ref26, Ref27, Ref30, Ref31), Duration of treatment (Ref34, Ref17, Ref26), Feed's content in condensed tannins (Ref27), Form in the diet (Ref3, Ref26, Ref31), Source of additive (Ref37, Ref26, Ref41) and Type of additive (Ref40, Ref19) |
GHG emissions | Additive dose (Ref7), Age of the animal (Ref20), Animal type (Ref35, Ref47, Ref19, Ref23, Ref22), Dose (Ref35, Ref41, Ref47, Ref57, Ref7, Ref5, Ref16, Ref19, Ref23, Ref26, Ref27, Ref21), Dry matter intake (Ref57, Ref7), Duration of treatment (Ref34, Ref26), Feed's content in condensed tannins (Ref27), Feed's content in ether extract (Ref57), Form in the diet (Ref35, Ref3, Ref26, Ref21), Source of additive (Ref41, Ref23, Ref23, Ref26), Type of additive (Ref19, Ref22) and Type of experiment (Ref41, Ref13, Ref23, Ref26) |
Nutrient excretion | Animal weight (Ref33), Dose (Ref37, Ref33, Ref26, Ref31), Form in the diet (Ref37, Ref26, Ref31) and Source of additive (Ref26) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 22 January 2024 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Irawan A.; Jayanegara A.; Niderkorn V. | 2024 | Impacts of red clover and sainfoin silages on the performance, nutrient utilization and milk fatty acids profile of ruminants: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ANIMAL NUTRITION, 108(1), 13-26. | 10.1111/jpn.13853 |
Ref2 | Narvaez-Izquiedo J.; Fonseca-De La Hoz J.; Kannan G.; Bohorquez-Herrera J. | 2024 | Use of macroalgae as a nutritional supplement for sustainable production of ruminants: A systematic review and an insight on the Colombian Caribbean region | ALGAL RESEARCH, 77, 103359. | 10.1016/j.algal.2023.103359 |
Ref3 | Abdelbagi M.; Ridwan R.; Fitri A.; Nahrowi; Jayanegarac A. | 2023 | Performance, Methane Emission, Nutrient Utilization, and the Nitrate Toxicity of Ruminants with Dietary Nitrate Addition: A Meta-analysis from In Vivo Trials | TROPICAL ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, 46(1), 74-84. | 10.5398/tasj.2023.46.1.74 |
Ref4 | Berça A.S.; Tedeschi L.O.; da Silva Cardoso A.; Reis R.A. | 2023 | Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary condensed tannins and methane emissions by cattle | ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 298, 115564. | 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115564 |
Ref5 | Brutti D.D.; Canozzi M.E.A.; Sartori E.D.; Colombatto D.; Barcellos J.O.J. | 2023 | Effects of the use of tannins on the ruminal fermentation of cattle: A meta-analysis and meta-regression | ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 306, 115806. | 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115806 |
Ref6 | de Rauglaudre, T; Méda, B; Fontaine, S; Lambert, W; Fournel, S; Létourneau-Montminy, MP | 2023 | Meta-analysis of the effect of low-protein diets on the growth performance, nitrogen excretion, and fat deposition in broilers | FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE, 4, 1214076. | 10.3389/fanim.2023.1214076 |
Ref7 | Kebreab E.; Bannink A.; Pressman E.M.; Walker N.; Karagiannis A.; van Gastelen S.; Dijkstra J. | 2023 | A meta-analysis of effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle | Journal of Dairy Science, 106(2), 927-936. | 10.3168/jds.2022-22211 |
Ref8 | Qomariyah N.; Ella A.; Ahmad S.N.; Yusriani Y.; Sholikin M.M.; Prihambodo T.R.; Retnani Y.; Jayanegara A.; Wina E.; Permana I.G. | 2023 | Dietary biochar as a feed additive for increasing livestock performance: A meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo experiment | CZECK JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 68(2), 72-86. | 10.17221/124/2022-cjas |
Ref9 | Santos Torres R.D.N.; Coelho L.D.M.; Ghedini C.P.; Neto O.R.M.; Chardulo L.A.L.; Torrecilhas J.A.; de Lima Valença R.; Baldassini W.A.; Almeida M.T.C. | 2023 | Potential of nutritional strategies to reduce enteric methane emission in feedlot sheep: A meta-analysis and multivariate analysis | SMALL RUMINANT RESEARCH, 220, 106919. | 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.106919 |
Ref10 | Susanto, I; Wiryawan, KG; Suharti, S; Retnani, Y; Zahera, R; Jayanegara, A | 2023 | Evaluation of Megasphaera elsdenii supplementation on rumen fermentation, production performance, carcass traits and health of ruminants: a meta-analysis | ANIMAL BIOSCIENCE, 36(6), 879-890. | 10.5713/ab.22.0258 |
Ref11 | Alfonso-Avila A.R.; Cirot O.; Lambert W.; Létourneau-Montminy M.P. | 2022 | Effect of low-protein corn and soybean meal-based diets on nitrogen utilization, litter quality, and water consumption in broiler chicken production: insight from meta-analysis | ANIMAL, 16(3), 100458. | 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100458 |
Ref12 | 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.; Eugéne M.A.; Enahoro D.; Kebreab E.; Kreuzer M.; McGee M.; Martin C.; Newbold C.J.; Reynolds C.K.; Schwarm A.; Shingfield K.J.; Veneman J.B.; Yáñez-Ruiz D.R.; 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 OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 119(20), E2111294119. | 10.1073/pnas.2111294119 |
Ref13 | Brito A.F.; Almeida K.V.; Oliveira A.S. | 2022 | Production performance, nutrient use efficiency, and predicted enteric methane emissions in dairy cows under confinement or grazing management system | TRANSLATIONAL ANIMAL SCIENCE, 6(2), txac028. | 10.1093/tas/txac028 |
Ref14 | Byrne L.; Murphy R.A. | 2022 | Relative Bioavailability of Trace Minerals in Production Animal Nutrition: A Review | ANIMALS, 12(15), 1981. | 10.3390/ani12151981 |
Ref15 | Dorantes-Iturbide G.; Orzuna-Orzuna J.F.; Lara-Bueno A.; Mendoza-Martínez G.D.; Miranda-Romero L.A.; Lee-Rangel H.A. | 2022 | Essential Oils as a Dietary Additive for Small Ruminants: A Meta-Analysis on Performance, Rumen Parameters, Serum Metabolites, and Product Quality | VETERINARY SCIENCES, 9(9), 475. | 10.3390/vetsci9090475 |
Ref16 | Fitri A.; Yanza Y.R.; Jayanegara A.; Ridwan R.; Astuti W.D.; Sarwono K.A.; Fidriyanto R.; Rohmatussolihat R.; Widyastuti Y.; Obitsu T. | 2022 | Divergence effects between dietary Acacia and Quebracho tannin extracts on nutrient utilization, performance, and methane emission of ruminants: A meta-analysis | ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, 93(1), e13765. | 10.1111/asj.13765 |
Ref17 | Orzuna‐orzuna J.F.; Dorantes‐iturbide G.; Lara‐bueno A.; Miranda‐romero L.A.; Mendoza‐martínez G.D.; Santiago‐figueroa I. | 2022 | A Meta‐Analysis of Essential Oils Use for Beef Cattle Feed: Rumen Fermentation, Blood Metabolites, Meat Quality, Performance and, Environmental and Economic Impact | FERMENTATION, 8(6), 254. | 10.3390/fermentation8060254 |
Ref18 | Salami S.A.; Ross S.A.; Patsiogiannis A.; Moran C.A.; Taylor-Pickard J. | 2022 | Performance and environmental impact of egg production in response to dietary supplementation of mannan oligosaccharide in laying hens: a meta-analysis | POULTRY SCIENCE, 101(4), 101745. | 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101745 |
Ref19 | Sofyan A.; Irawan A.; Herdian H.; Jasmadi; Harahap M.A.; Sakti A.A.; Suryani A.E.; Novianty H.; Kurniawan T.; Darma I.N.G.; Windarsih A.; Jayanegara A. | 2022 | Effects of various macroalgae species on methane production, rumen fermentation, and ruminant production: A meta-analysis from in vitro and in vivo experiments | ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 294, 115503. | 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115503 |
Ref20 | Torres R.N.S.; Ghedini C.P.; Paschoaloto J.R.; da Silva D.A.V.; Coelho L.M.; Almeida Junior G.A.; Ezequiel J.M.B.; Machado Neto O.R.; Almeida M.T.C. | 2022 | Effects of tannins supplementation to sheep diets on their performance, carcass parameters and meat fatty acid profile: A meta-analysis study | SMALL RUMINANT RESEARCH, 206, 106585. | 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2021.106585 |
Ref21 | Abdelbagi M.; Ridwan R.; Nahrowi; Jayanegara A. | 2021 | The potential of nitrate supplementation for modulating the fermentation pattern and mitigating methane emission in ruminants: A meta-analysis from in vitro experiments | IOP CONFERENCE SERIES: EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 902(1), 12023. | 10.1088/1755-1315/902/1/012023 |
Ref22 | Almeida A.K.; Hegarty R.S.; Cowie A. | 2021 | Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems | ANIMAL NUTRITION, 7(4), 1219-1230. | 10.1016/j.aninu.2021.09.005 |
Ref23 | Cardoso-Gutierrez E.; Aranda-Aguirre E.; Robles-Jimenez L.E.; Castelán-Ortega O.A.; Chay-Canul A.J.; Foggi G.; Angeles-Hernandez J.C.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez E.; González-Ronquillo M. | 2021 | Effect of tannins from tropical plants on methane production from ruminants: A systematic review | VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE, 14, 100214. | 10.1016/j.vas.2021.100214 |
Ref24 | Darabighane, B; Mandavi, A; Aghjehgheshlagh, FM; Navidshad, B; Yousefi, MH; Lee, MRF | 2021 | The effects of dietary saponins on ruminal methane production and fermentation parameters in sheep: A meta analysis | IRANIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL SCIENCE, 11(1), 15-21. | not available |
Ref25 | Lean I.J.; Golder H.M.; Grant T.M.D.; Moate P.J. | 2021 | A meta-analysis of effects of dietary seaweed on beef and dairy cattle performance and methane yield | PLoS ONE 16(7): e0249053. | 10.1371/journal.pone.0249053 |
Ref26 | Orzuna-Orzuna J.F.; Dorantes-Iturbide G.; Lara-Bueno A.; Mendoza-Martínez G.D.; Miranda-Romero L.A.; Hernández-García P.A. | 2021 | Effects of dietary tannins’ supplementation on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and enteric methane emissions in beef cattle: A meta-analysis | SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND), 13(13), 7410. | 10.3390/su13137410 |
Ref27 | Pech-Cervantes A.A.; Terrill T.H.; Ogunade I.M.; Estrada-Reyes Z.M. | 2021 | Meta-analysis of the effects of dietary inclusion of sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) forage on performance, digestibility, and rumen fermentation of small ruminants | LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 253, 104707. | 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104707 |
Ref28 | Ridla M.; Laconi E.B.; Nahrowi; Jayanegara A. | 2021 | Effects of saponin on enteric methane emission and nutrient digestibility of ruminants: An in vivo meta-analysis | IOP CONFERENCE SERIES: EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 788(1), 12028. | 10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012028 |
Ref29 | Salami, SA; Moran, CA; Warren, HE; Taylor-Pickard, J | 2021 | Meta-analysis and sustainability of feeding slow-release urea in dairy production | PLOS ONE, 16(2), e0246922. | 10.1371/journal.pone.0246922 |
Ref30 | Torres, RNS; Paschoaloto, JR; Ezequiel, JMB; da Silva, DAV; Almeida, MTC | 2021 | Meta-analysis of the effects of essential oil as an alternative to monensin in diets for beef cattle | THE VETERINARY JOURNAL, 272, 105659. | 10.1016/j.tvjl.2021.105659 |
Ref31 | Torres R.D.N.S.; Bertoco J.P.A.; de Arruda M.C.G.; Coelho L.D.M.; Paschoaloto J.R.; Júnior G.A.D.A.; Ezequiel J.M.B.; Almeida M.T.C. | 2021 | Meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of including molasses in the diet for dairy cows on performance, milk fat synthesis and milk fatty acid | LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 250, 104551. | 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104551 |
Ref32 | Yanza, YR; Fitri, A; Suwignyo, B; Elfahmi; Hidayatik, N; Kumalasari, NR; Irawan, A; Jayanegara, A | 2021 | The Utilisation of Tannin Extract as a Dietary Additive in Ruminant Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis | ANIMALS, 11(11), 3317. | 10.3390/ani11113317 |
Ref33 | Zhao, JB; Wang, JJ; Zhang, S | 2021 | Dietary fiber-A double-edged sword for balanced nutrition supply and environment sustainability in swine industry: A meta-analysis and systematic review | JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 315, 128130. | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128130 |
Ref34 | Belanche, A; Newbold, CJ; Morgavi, DP; Bach, A; Zweifel, B; Yanez-Ruiz, DR | 2020 | A meta-analysis describing the effects of the essential oils blend Agolin Ruminant on performance, rumen fermentation and methane emissions in dairy cows | ANIMALS, 10, 620. | 10.3390/ani10040620 |
Ref35 | Feng, XY; Dijkstra, J; Bannink, A; van Gastelen, S; France, J; Kebreab, E | 2020 | Antimethanogenic effects of nitrate supplementation in cattle: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 103(12), 11375-11385. | 10.3168/jds.2020-18541 |
Ref36 | Harahap, RP; Setiawan, D; Nahrowi; Suharti, S; Obitsu, T; Jayanegara, A | 2020 | Enteric Methane Emissions and Rumen Fermentation Profile Treated by Dietary Chitosan: A Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Experiments | TROPICAL ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, 43(3):233-239. | 10.5398/tasj.2020.43.3.233 |
Ref37 | Herremans, S; Vanwindekens, F; Decruyenaere, V; Beckers, Y; Froidmont, E | 2020 | Effect of dietary tannins on milk yield and composition, nitrogen partitioning and nitrogen use efficiency of lactating dairy cows: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ANIMAL NUTRITION, 104(5), 1209-1218. | 10.1111/jpn.13341 |
Ref38 | Kim, H; Le, HG; Beek, YC; Lee, S; Seo, J | 2020 | The effects of dietary supplementation with 3-nitrooxypropanol on enteric methane emissions, rumen fermentation, and production performance in ruminants: a meta-analysis | Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 62(1):31-42. | 10.5187/jast.2020.62.1.31 |
Ref39 | Liu Z., Ariful Haque Md., | 2020 | Evaluate the representativeness of the NAEMS air emission data for swine operations in a changing industry | AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS | 10.13031/aim.202001437 |
Ref40 | Wang, HL; Long, WT; Chadwick, D; Velthof, GL; Oenema, O; Ma, WQ; Wang, JJ; Qin, W; Hou, Y; Zhang, FS | 2020 | Can dietary manipulations improve the productivity of pigs with lower environmental and economic cost? A global meta-analysis | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 289, 106748. | 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106748 |
Ref41 | Yanza Y.R.; Szumacher-Strabel M.; Jayanegara A.; Kasenta A.M.; Gao M.; Huang H.; Patra A.K.; Warzych E.; Cieślak A. | 2020 | The effects of dietary medium-chain fatty acids on ruminal methanogenesis and fermentation in vitro and in vivo: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ANIMAL NUTRITION, 00:1–16. | 10.1111/jpn.13367 |
Ref42 | Dai, XX; Faciola, AP | 2019 | Evaluating strategies to reduce ruminal protozoa and their impacts on nutrient utilization and animal performance in ruminants - A meta-analysis | FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 10, 2648. | 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02648 |
Ref43 | Darabighane, B; Salem, AZM; Aghjehgheshlagh, FM; Mahdavi, A; Zarei, A; Elghandour, MMMY; Lopez, S | 2019 | Environmental efficiency of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on methane production in dairy and beef cattle via a meta-analysis | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 26(4), 3651-3658. | 10.1007/s11356-018-3878-x |
Ref44 | Ti, CP; Xia, LL; Chang, SX; Yan, XY | 2019 | Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: A meta-analysis | ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 245, 141-148. | 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124 |
Ref45 | van Gastelen, Sanne, Dijkstra, Jan, Bannink, André | 2019 | Are dietary strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission equally effective across dairy cattle, beef cattle, and sheep? | JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 102(7), 6109-6130. | 10.3168/jds.2018-15785 |
Ref46 | Wang, Y; Xue, WT; Zhu, ZP; Yang, JF; Li, XR; Tian, Z; Dong, HM; Zoua, GY | 2019 | Mitigating ammonia emissions from typical broiler and layer manure management - A system analysis | WASTE MANAGEMENT, 9(3), 730-743. | 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.019 |
Ref47 | Dijkstra, J; Bannink, A; France, J; Kebreab, E; van Gastelen, S | 2018 | Short communication: Antimethanogenic effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol depend on supplementation dose, dietary fiber content, and cattle type | JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 101(10), 9041-9047. | 10.3168/jds.2018-14456 |
Ref48 | Jayanegara, A; Sarwono, KA; Kondo, M; Matsui, H; Ridla, M; Laconi, EB; Nahrowi | 2018 | Use of 3-nitrooxypropanol as feed additive for mitigating enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a meta-analysis | ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 17(3), 650-656. | 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1404945 |
Ref49 | Li, ZJ; Deng, Q; Liu, YF; Yan, T; Li, F; Cao, YC; Yao, JH | 2018 | Dynamics of methanogenesis, ruminal fermentation and fiber digestibility in ruminants following elimination of protozoa: a meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 9, 89. | 10.1186/s40104-018-0305-6 |
Ref50 | Sajeev, EPM; Amon, B; Ammon, C; Zollitsch, W; Winiwarter, W | 2018 | Evaluating the potential of dietary crude protein manipulation in reducing ammonia emissions from cattle and pig manure: A meta-analysis | NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 110, 161–175. | 10.1007/s10705-017-9893-3 |
Ref51 | Sajeev, EPM; Winiwarter, W; Amon, B | 2018 | Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from different stages of liquid manure management chains: Abatement options and emission interactions | JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 47, 30-41. | 10.2134/jeq2017.05.0199 |
Ref52 | Wang, Y; Li, XR; Yang, JF; Tian, Z; Sun, QP; Xue, WT; Dong, HM | 2018 | Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from beef cattle feedlot production: A system meta-analysis | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 52, 11232-11242. | 10.1021/acs.est.8b02475 |
Ref53 | Clark, M; Tilman, D | 2017 | Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice | ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 12(6), 64016. | 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 |
Ref54 | Hou, Y; Velthof, GL; Oenema, O | 2015 | Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 21(3), 1293-1312. | 10.1111/gcb.12767 |
Ref55 | Lewis, KA; Tzilivakis, J; Green, A; Warner, DJ | 2015 | Potential of feed additives to improve the environmental impact of European livestock farming: a multi-issue analysis | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY, 13(1), 55-68. | 10.1080/14735903.2014.936189 |
Ref56 | Nayak, D; Saetnan, E; Cheng, K; Wang, W; Koslowski, F; Cheng, YF; Zhu, WY; Wang, JK; Liu, JX; Moran, D; Yan, X; Cardenas, L; Newbold, J; Pan, G; Lu, Y; Smith, P | 2015 | Management opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from Chinese agriculture | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 209, 108-124. | 10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.035 |
Ref57 | Appuhamy, JADRN; Strathe, AB; Jayasundara, S; Wagner-Riddle, C; Dijkstra, J; France, J; Kebreab, E | 2013 | Anti-methanogenic effects of monensin in dairy and beef cattle: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 96, 5161-5173. | 10.3168/jds.2012-5923 |
Ref58 | Ungerfeld, EM; Forster, RJ | 2011 | A meta-analysis of malate effects on methanogenesis in ruminal batch cultures | ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 166-167, 282-290. | 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.018 |
Ref59 | Eugene, M; Masse, D; Chiquette, J; Benchaar, C | 2008 | Meta-analysis on the effects of lipid supplementation on methane production in lactating dairy cows | CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 88(2), 331-334. | 10.4141/CJAS07112 |
Ref60 | Ungerfeld, EM; Kohn, RA; Wallace, RJ; Newbold, CJ | 2007 | A meta-analysis of fumarate effects on methane production in ruminal batch cultures | JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 85(10), 2556-2563. | 10.2527/jas.2006-674 |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fic
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] Arndt et al. 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." PNAS 119.20 (2022): e2111294119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111294119