Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-sl7kg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T02:02:01.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2013

P. J. Gerber ,
A. N. Hristov ,
B. Henderson ,
H. Makkar ,
J. Oh ,
C. Lee ,
R. Meinen ,
F. Montes ,
T. Ott  and
J. Firkins
...Show all authors
P. J. Gerber*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Consumer protection Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Vialle delle terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
A. N. Hristov
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
B. Henderson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Consumer protection Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Vialle delle terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
H. Makkar
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Consumer protection Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Vialle delle terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
J. Oh
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
C. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
R. Meinen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
F. Montes
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
T. Ott
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
J. Firkins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210, USA
A. Rotz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, University Park, PA 16802, USA
C. Dell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, University Park, PA 16802, USA
A. T. Adesogan
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA
W. Z. Yang
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge AB, Canada T1J 4B1
J. M. Tricarico
Affiliation:
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, Rosemont, IL 60018, USA
E. Kebreab
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
G. Waghorn
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
S. Oosting
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Although livestock production accounts for a sizeable share of global greenhouse gas emissions, numerous technical options have been identified to mitigate these emissions. In this review, a subset of these options, which have proven to be effective, are discussed. These include measures to reduce CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation by ruminants, the largest single emission source from the global livestock sector, and for reducing CH4 and N2O emissions from manure. A unique feature of this review is the high level of attention given to interactions between mitigation options and productivity. Among the feed supplement options for lowering enteric emissions, dietary lipids, nitrates and ionophores are identified as the most effective. Forage quality, feed processing and precision feeding have the best prospects among the various available feed and feed management measures. With regard to manure, dietary measures that reduce the amount of N excreted (e.g. better matching of dietary protein to animal needs), shift N excretion from urine to faeces (e.g. tannin inclusion at low levels) and reduce the amount of fermentable organic matter excreted are recommended. Among the many ‘end-of-pipe’ measures available for manure management, approaches that capture and/or process CH4 emissions during storage (e.g. anaerobic digestion, biofiltration, composting), as well as subsurface injection of manure, are among the most encouraging options flagged in this section of the review. The importance of a multiple gas perspective is critical when assessing mitigation potentials, because most of the options reviewed show strong interactions among sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper reviews current knowledge on potential pollution swapping, whereby the reduction of one GHG or emission source leads to unintended increases in another.

Keywords

greenhouse gasesclimate changeanimal productionanimal feedingmanure management
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s2: Greenhouse Gases & Animal Agriculture Conference (GGAA 2013), 23rd ‐ 26th June 2013, Dublin, Ireland , June 2013 , pp. 220 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agle, M, Hristov, AN, Zaman, S, Schneider, C, Ndegwa, P, Vaddella, VK 2010a. Effects of ruminally degraded protein on rumen fermentation and ammonia losses from manure in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1625–1637.Google Scholar
Amon, B, Kryvoruchko, V, Amon, T, Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S 2006. Methane, nitrousoxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry andinfluence of slurry treatment. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 112, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archimède, H, Eugène, M, Magdeleine, CM, Boval, M, Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Lecomte, P, Doreau, M 2011. Comparison of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 59–64.Google Scholar
Ball, RO, Mohn, S 2003. Feeding strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from pigs. Advances in Pork Production. Proceedings of 2003 Banff Pork Seminar, Alberta, Canada, pp. 301–311.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM, Martinez, TF, McAllister, TA 2007. Use of condensed tannin extract from quebracho trees to reduce methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1990–1996.Google Scholar
Bertora, C, Alluvione, F, Zavattaro, L, van Groenigen, JW, Velthof, G, Grignani, C 2008. Pig slurry treatment modifies slurry composition, N2O, and CO2 emissions after soil incorporation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 1999–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjurling, K, Svärd, Å 1998. Samrötning av organiskt avfall: en studie av svenska biogasanläggningar [Co-digestion of organic waste: a study of Swedish biogas plants]. Master's Thesis, Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, Lund University Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Börjesson, P, Berglund, M 2006. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems—part 1: fuel-cycle emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy 30, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S, Kruger, C, Subler, S 2008. Greenhouse gas balance for composting operations. Journal of Environmental Quality 37, 1396–1410.Google Scholar
Carulla, JE, Kreuzer, M, Machmüller, A, Hess, HD 2005. Supplementation of Acacia mearnsii tannins decreases methanogenesis and urinary nitrogen in forage-fed sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 961–970.Google Scholar
Clemens, J, Trimborn, M, Weiland, P, Amon, B 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, GC, Coffey, RD 1993. Future strategies to diminish nitrogen and phosphorus in swine manure. Proceedings of NPPC Environment Symposium “Meeting the Environmental Challenge”, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 20–32.Google Scholar
Costa, A, Chiarello, GL, Selli, E, Guarino, M 2012. Effects of TiO2 based photocatalytic paint on concentrations and emissions of pollutants and on animal performance in a swine weaning unit. Journal of Environmental Management 96, 86–90.Google Scholar
de Klein, CAM, Sherlock, RR, Cameron, KC, van der Weerden, TJ 2001. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils in New Zealand—a review of current knowledge and directions for future research. Royal Society of New Zealand 31, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Klein, CAM, Cameron, KC, Di, HJ, Rys, G, Monaghan, RM, Sherlock, RR 2011. Repeated annual use of the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) does not alter its effectiveness in reducing N2O emissions from cow urine. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 480–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRamus, HA, Clement, TC, Giampola, DD, Dickison, PC 2003. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 32, 269–277.Google ScholarPubMed
Di, HJ, Cameron, KC 2003. Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in spray-irrigated grazed grassland by treating the soil with dicyandiamide, a nitrification inhibitor. Soil Use and Management 19, 284–290.Google Scholar
Di, HJ, Cameron, KC 2012. How does the application of different nitrification inhibitors affect nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching from cow urine in grazed pastures? Soil Use and Management 28, 54–61.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Oenema, O, Bannink, A 2011. Dietary strategies to reducing N excretion from cattle: implications for methane emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3, 414–422.Google Scholar
Duffield, TF, Rabiee, AR, Lean, IJ 2008. A meta-analysis of the impact of monensin in lactating dairy cattle. Part 2. Production effects. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1347–1360.Google Scholar
Eckard, RJ, Grainger, C, de Klein, CAM 2010. Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.Google Scholar
Eugène, 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, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eugène, M, Martin, C, Mialon, MM, Krauss, D, Renand, G, Doreau, M 2011. Dietary linseed and starch supplementation decreases methane production of fattening bulls. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 330–337.Google Scholar
FAO 2013a. Greenhouse gas emissions from pork and chicken supply chains, a global life cycle assessment. FAO, Rome. Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2013b. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains, a global life cycle assessment. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Garg, MR, Sherasia, PL, Bhanderi, BM, Phondba, BT, Shelke, SK, Makkar, HPS 2012. Effects of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179, 24–35.Google Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Vellinga, T, Opio, C, Steinfeld, H 2011. Productivity gains and emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Science 138, 100–108.Google Scholar
Girard, M, Ramirez, AA, Buelna, G, Heitz, M 2011. Biofiltration of methane at low concentrations representative of the piggery industry – influence of the methane and nitrogen concentrations. Chemical Engineering Journal 168, 151–158.Google Scholar
Goel, G, Makkar, HPS 2012. Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and saponins. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44, 729–739.Google Scholar
Goodrich, RD, Garrett, JE, Gast, DR, Kirick, MA, Larson, DA, Meiske, JC 1984. Influence of monensin on the performance of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58, 1484–1498.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 308–320.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Clarke, T, Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM, Eckard, RJ 2008. Supplementation with whole cottonseed reduces methane emissions and can profitably increase milk production of dairy cows offered a forage and cereal grain diet. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 73–76.Google Scholar
Grainger, C, Williams, R, Clarke, T, Wright, AD, Eckard, RJ 2010. Supplementation with whole cottonseed causes long-term reduction of methane emissions from lactating dairy cows offered a forage and cereal grain diet. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2612–2619.Google Scholar
Guarino, M, Fabbri, C, Brambilla, M, Valli, L, Navarotto, P 2006. Evaluation of simplified covering systems to reduce gaseous emissions from livestock manure storage. Transactions of the ASABE 49, 737–747.Google Scholar
Hales, KE, Cole, NA, MacDonald, JC 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3174–3185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, R, Nielsen, D, Schramm, A, Nielsen, L, Revsbech, N, Hansen, M 2009. Greenhouse gas microbiology in wet and dry straw crust covering pig slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality 38, 1311–1319.Google Scholar
Hart, KJ, Martin, PG, Foley, PA, Kenny, DA, Boland, TM 2009. Effect of sward dry matter digestibility on methane production, ruminal fermentation, and microbial populations of zero-grazed beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3342–3350.Google Scholar
Hegarty, RS, Alcock, D, Robinson, DL, Goopy, JP, Vercoe, PE 2010. Nutritional and flock management options to reduce methane output and methane per unit product from sheep enterprises. Animal Production Science 50, 1026–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Y 1985. Dietary factors involved in feed intake regulation in growing pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science 12, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez-Ramirez, G, Brouder, SM, Smith, DR, Van Scoyoc, GE 2009. Greenhouse gas fluxes in an eastern corn belt soil: weather, nitrogen source, and rotation. Journal of Environmental Quality 38, 841–854.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Grace, D, Njuki, J, Johnson, N, Enahoro, D, Silvestri, S, Rufino, MC 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7 (suppl. s1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Holter, JB, Haves, HH, Urban, WE Jr, Duthie, AH 1992. Energy balance and lactation response in Holstein cows supplemented with cottonseed with or without calcium soap. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1480–1494.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Heyler, K, Schurman, E, Griswold, K, Topper, P, Hile, M, Ishler, V, Wheeler, E, Dinh, S 2012. Reducing dietary protein decreased the ammonia emitting potential of manure from commercial dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 95 (Suppl. 2), 477.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, A, Yang, WZ, Tricarico, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J, Oosting, S 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production – a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissiosn. In (ed. P Gerber, B Henderson and H Makkar). FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hulshof, RBA, Berndt, A, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, van Zijderveld, SM, Newbold, JR, Perdok, HB 2012. Dietary nitrate supplementation reduces methane emission in beef cattle fed sugarcane based diets. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2317–2323.Google Scholar
Jiang, T, Schuchardt, F, Li, G, Guo, R, Zhao, Y 2011. Effect of C/N ratio, aeration rate and moisture content on ammonia and greenhouse gas emission during the composting. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China) 23, 1754–1760.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.Google Scholar
Kelliher, FM, Clough, TJ, Clark, H, Rys, G 2008. Temperature dependence of dicyandiamide (DCD) degradation in soils: a data synthesis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 1878–1882.Google Scholar
Khalil, MI, Gutser, R, Schmidhalter, U 2009. Effects of urease and nitrification inhibitors added to urea on nitrous oxide emissions from a loess soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 172, 651–660.Google Scholar
Külling, DR, Menzi, H, Krober, TF, Neftel, A, Sutter, F, Lischer, P, Kreuzer, M 2001. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from different types of dairy manure during storage as affected by dietary protein content. The Journal of Agricultural Science 137, 235–250.Google Scholar
Külling, DR, Menzi, H, Sutter, F, Lischer, P, Kreuzer, M 2003. Ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from differently stored dairy manure derived from grass- and hay based rations. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 65, 13–22.Google Scholar
Lee, C, Hristov, AN, Dell, CJ, Feyereisen, GW, Kaye, J, Beegle, D 2012. Effect of dietary protein concentration on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1930–1941.Google Scholar
Loyon, L, Guiziou, F, Beline, E, Peu, P 2007. Gaseous emissions (NH3, N2O, CH4 and CO2) from the aerobic treatment of piggery slurry—comparison with a conventional storage system. Biosystems Engineering 97, 472–480.Google Scholar
Luo, J, de Klein, CAM, Ledgard, SF, Saggar, S 2010. Management options to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from intensively grazed pastures: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136, 282–291.Google Scholar
Luo, J, Saggar, S, Bhandral, R, Bolan, N, Ledgard, S, Lindsey, S, Sun, W 2008. Effects of irrigating dairy-grazed grassland with farm dairy effluent on nitrous oxide emissions. Plant and Soil 309, 119–130.Google Scholar
Maeda, K, Hanajima, D, Toyoda, S, Yoshida, N, Morioka, R, Osada, T 2011. Microbiology of nitrogen cycle in animal manure compost. Microbial Biotechnology 4, 700–709.Google Scholar
Maia, GDN, Day, GB, Gates, RS, Taraba, JL 2012a. Ammonia biofiltration and nitrous oxide generation during the start-up of gas-phase compost biofilters. Atmospheric Environment 46, 659–664.Google Scholar
Maia, GDN, Day, GB, Gates, RS, Taraba, JL, Coyne, MS 2012b. Moisture effects on greenhouse gases generation in nitrifying gas-phase compost biofilters. Water Research 46, 3023–3031.Google Scholar
Makkar, HPS 2003. Quantification of tannins in tree foliage. FAO/IAEA publication. H.P.S. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Martinez, J, Guiziou, F, Peu, P, Gueutier, V 2003. Influence of treatment techniques for pig slurry on methane emissions during subsequent storage. Biosystems Engineering 85, 347–354.Google Scholar
McCaughey, WP, Wittenberg, K, Corrigan, D 1999. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 221–226.Google Scholar
Melse, RW, Ogink, NWM 2005. Air scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor reduction at livestock operations: review of on-farm research in the Netherlands. Transactions of the ASABE 48, 2303–2313.Google Scholar
Melse, RW, Verdoes, N 2005. Evaluation of four farm-scale systems for the treatment of liquid pig manure. Biosystems Engineering 92, 47–57.Google Scholar
Misselbrook, TH, Powell, JM, Broderick, GA, Grabber, JH 2005a. Dietary manipulation in dairy cattle: laboratory experiments to assess the influence on ammonia emissions. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1765–1777.Google Scholar
Monteny, GJ, Bannink, A, Chadwick, D 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 163–170.Google Scholar
Mosnier, E, van der Werf, HGM, Boisy, J, Dourmad, JY 2011. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in the manufacturing of pig and broiler feeds using life cycle assessment. Animal 5, 1972–1983.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C, Yan, T, Wills, DA, Murray, S, Gordon, AW 2012. Comparison of the sulphur hexafluoride tracer and respiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3139–3148.Google Scholar
Murray, RM, Bryant, AM, Leng, RA 1976. Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 36, 1–14.Google Scholar
Ndegwa, PM, Hristov, AN, Ogejo, JA 2011. Ammonia emission from animal manure: mechanisms and mitigation techniques. In Environmental chemistry of animal manure (ed. Z He), pp. 107–151. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY USA.Google Scholar
Nielsen, D, Schramm, A, Revsbech, N 2010. Oxygen distribution and potential ammonia oxidation in floating liquid manure crusts. Journal of Environmental Quality 39, 1813–1820.Google Scholar
Nolan, JV, Hegarty, RS, Hegarty, J, Godwin, IR, Woodgate, R 2010. Effects of dietary nitrate on fermentation, methane production and digesta kinetics in sheep. Animal Production Science 50, 801–806.Google Scholar
Osada, T 2000. The processing of livestock waste through the use of activated sludge – Treatment with intermittent aeration process. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 13, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osada, T, Takada, R, Shinzato, I 2011. Potential reduction of greenhouse gas emission from swine manure by using a low-protein diet supplemented with synthetic amino acids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 562–574.Google Scholar
Park, KH, Jeon, JH, Jeon, KH, Kwag, JH, Choi, DY 2011. Low greenhouse gas emissions during composting of solid swine manure. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 550–556.Google Scholar
Parsons, AJRowarth, JS, Rasmussen, S 2011. High-sugar grasses. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6, 1–12.Google Scholar
Peigné, J, Girardin, P 2004. Environmental impacts of farm-scale composting practices. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 153, 45–68.Google Scholar
Petersen, SO 1999. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure and inorganic fertilizers applied to spring barley. Journal of Environmental Quality 28, 1610–1618.Google Scholar
Petersen, SO, Sommer, SG 2011. Ammonia and nitrous oxide interactions: roles of manure organic matter management. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 503–513.Google Scholar
Philippe, F-X, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2007. Comparison of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during the fattening of pigs, kept either on fully slatted floor or deep litter. Livestock Science 111, 144–152.Google Scholar
Picard, ML, Uzu, G, Dunnington, EA, Siegel, PB 1993. Food intake adjustments of chicks: short term reactions to deficiencies in lysine, methionine and tryptophan. British Poultry Science 34, 737–746.Google Scholar
Potter, EL, Muller, RD, Wray, MI, Carroll, LH, Meyer, RM 1986. Effect of monensin on the performance of cattle on pasture or fed harvested forages in confinement. Journal of Animal Science 62, 583–592.Google Scholar
Rabiee, AR, Breinhild, K, Scott, W, Golder, HM, Block, E, Lean, IJ 2012. Effect of fat additions to diets of dairy cattle on milk production and components: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3225–3247.Google Scholar
Roos, KF, Martin, JH, Moser, MA 2004. AgSTAR handbook: a manual for developing biogas systems at commercial farms in the United States. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Sar, C, Santoso, B, Mwenya, B, Gamo, Y, Kobayashi, T, Morikawa, R, Kimura, K, Mizukoshi, H, Takahashi, J 2004. Manipulation of rumen methanogenesis by the combination of nitrate with β 1-4 galacto-oligosaccharides or nisin in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 129–142.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S 2009. Modélisation des interactions digestives et de la production de méthane chez les ruminants. INRA Productions Animales 22, 375–384.Google Scholar
Schils, RLM, Eriksen, J, Ledgard, SF, Vellinga, THV, Kuikman, PJ, Luo, L, Petersen, SO, Velthof, GL 2013. Strategies to mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from herbivore production systems. Animal 7 (suppl. s1), 29–40.Google Scholar
Sliwinski, BJ, Kreuzer, M, Wettstein, HR, Machmuller, A 2002. Rumen fermentation and nitrogen balance of lambs fed diets containing plantextracts rich in tannins and saponins and associated emissions of nitrogen and methane. Archives of Animal Nutrition 56, 379–392.Google Scholar
Smith, DR, Owens, PR 2010. Impact of time to first rainfall event on greenhouse gas emissions following manure applications. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 41, 1604–1614.Google Scholar
Sommer, SG, Petersen, SO, Sörgard, H 2000. Greenhouse gas emission from stored livestock slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality 28, 1610–1618.Google Scholar
Sommer, SG, Møller, HB, Petersen, SO 2001. Reduktion af drivhusgasemission fra gylle og organisk affald ved biogasbehandling [The reduction of greenhouse gases from manure and organic waste using digestion and biogas production]. Danmarks JordbrugsForskning, Denmark.Google Scholar
Staerfl, SM, Zeitz, JO, Kreuzer, M, Soliva, CR 2012. Methane conversion rate of bulls fattened on grass or maize silage as compared with the IPCC default values, and the long-term methane mitigation efficiency of adding acacia tannin, garlic, maca and lupine. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 148, 111–120.Google Scholar
Staerfl, SM, Amelchanka, SL, Kälber, T, Soliva, CR, Kreuzer, M, Zeitz, JO 2012. Effect of feeding dried high-sugar ryegrass (‘AberMagic’) on methane and urinary nitrogen emissions of primiparous cows. Livestock Science 150, 293–301.Google Scholar
Thompson, AG, Wagner-Riddle, C, Fleming, R 2004. Emissions of N2O and CH4 during the composting of liquid swine manure. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 91, 87–104.Google Scholar
Thomsen, IK, Pederson, AR, Nyord, T, Petersen, SO 2010. Effects of slurry pre-treatment and application technique on short-term N2O emissions as determined by a new non-linear approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136, 227–235.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, HF, Thomson, DJ, Waldo, DR, Goering, HK, Haaland, GL 1992. Utilization of energy and nitrogen by yearling Holstein cattle fed direct-cut alfalfa or orchardgrass ensiled with formic acid plus formaldehyde. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3163–3177.Google Scholar
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) 2010 . Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2008. Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htmlGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Apajalahti, JA, Newbold, JR, Dijkstra, J, Leng, RA, Perdok, HB 2010. Nitrate and sulfate: effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5856–5866.Google Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Fonken, B, Dijkstra, J, Gerrits, WJJ, Perdok, HB, Fokkink, W, Newbold, JR 2011a. Effects of a combination of feed additives on methane production, diet digestibility, and animal performance in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1145–1454.Google Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, Newbold, JR, Hulshof, RBA, Perdok, HB 2011b. Persistency of methane mitigation by dietary nitrate supplementation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4028–4038.Google Scholar
VanderZaag, AC, Gordon, R, Glass, V, Jamieson, R 2008. Floating covers to reduce gas emissions from liquid manure storages: a review. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 24, 657–671.Google Scholar
Varel, VH, Wells, JE 2007. Influence of thymol and a urease inhibitor on coliform bacteria, odor, urea, and methane from a swine production manure pit. Journal of Environmental Quality 36, 773–779.Google Scholar
Varel, VH, Nienaber, JA, Freetly, HC 1999. Conservation of nitrogen in cattle feedlot waste with urease inhibitors. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1162–1168.Google Scholar
Velthof, GL, Mosquera, J 2011. The impact of slurry application technique on nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 140, 298–308.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Tavendale, MH, Woodfield, DR 2002. Mathanogenesis from forages fed to sheep. Proceedings of New Zealand Grassland Association 64, 167–171.Google Scholar
Wedlock, DN, Pedersen, G, Denis, M, Dey, D, Janssen, PH, Buddle, BM 2010. Development of a vaccine to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture; vaccination of sheep with methanogen fractions induces antibodies that block methane production in vitro. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 58, 29–36.Google Scholar
Woodward, SL, Waghorn, GC, Thomson, NA 2006. Supplementing dairy cows with oils to improve performance and reduce methane – does it work? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 66, 176–181.Google Scholar
Wright, ADG, Kennedy, P, O'Neill, CJ, Toovey, AF, Popovski, S, Rea, SM, Pimma, CL, Klein, L 2004. Reducing methane emissions in sheep by immunization against rumen methanogens. Vaccine 22, 3976–3985.Google Scholar
Zaman, M, Blennerhassett, JD 2010. Effects of the different rates of urease and nitrification inhibitors on gaseous emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide, nitrate leaching and pasture production from urine patches in an intensive grazed pasture system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 136, 236–246.Google Scholar
Zhou, M, Chung, Y-H, Beauchemin, KA, Holtshausen, L, Oba, M, McAllister, TA, Guan, LL 2011. Relationship between rumen methanogens and methane production in dairy cows fed diets supplemented with feed enzyme addition. Journal of Applied Microbiology 111, 1148–1158.Google Scholar