USING NUTRITIONAL STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE RUMINAL METHANE EMISSIONS FROM RUMINANTS

Highlights

● Microbial fermentation in the rumen is a main source of methane emissions.

● Nutritional strategies can effectively mitigate methane emissions by manipulating biochemical reactions in the methanogenesis pathways.

● Mitigation practices must be evaluated in an integrated animal production system instead of as isolated components.

Abstract

Within the agricultural sector, animal production contributes to 14.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and produces around 37% of global CH₄ emissions, mainly due to ruminal fermentation in ruminants. Over 90% of CH₄ is synthesized by methanogens in the rumen during carbohydrate fermentation. According to different substrates, methanogenesis pathways can be divided into four categories: (1) hydrogenotrophic pathway; (2) acetoclastic pathway; (3) methyl dismutation pathway; and (4) methyl-reducing pathway. Based on the principle of biochemical reactions in the methanogenesis pathways, this paper reviews the latest publications on CH₄ decreases in ruminants and described three nutritional strategies in terms of dietary nutrient manipulation (feeding management, feed composition, forage quality and lipids), microbial manipulation (ionophore, defaunation, methanogen inhibitors and probiotics), and chemical manipulation (nitrate, organic acids, plant secondary metabolites and phlorotannins, or halides in seaweeds). For each mitigation strategy, the review discusses effectiveness for decreasing CH₄ emissions, application prescription, and feed safety based on results from in vitro and in vivo studies. This review summarizes different nutritional strategies to mitigate CH₄ emissions and proposed comprehensive approaches for future feeding interventions and applications in the livestock industry.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

nutritional strategy / mitigation / microbe / methane / ruminant

References

[1] Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Macleod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfeld H. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: a global life cycle assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2013

[2] Gerber P J, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2013

[3] Mendonça R, Müller R A, Clow D, Verpoorter C, Raymond P, Tranvik L J, Sobek S. Organic carbon burial in global lakes and reservoirs. Nature Communications, 2017, 8(1): 1694

[4] Beauchemin K A, Ungerfeld E M, Eckard R J, Wang M. Review: Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation. Animal, 2020, 14(S1): s2–s16

[5] Liu Z, Wang K, Nan X, Cai M, Yang L, Xiong B, Zhao Y. Synergistic effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol with fumarate in the regulation of propionate formation and methanogenesis in dairy cows in vitro. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2022, 88(6): e0190821

[6] Grossi G, Goglio P, Vitali A, Williams A G. Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers, 2018, 9(1): 69–76

[7] Newbold C J, de la Fuente G, Belanche A, Ramos-Morales E, McEwan N R. The role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015, 6: 1313

[8] Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Janssen P H. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5(1): 14567

[9] Kittelmann S, Pinares-Patiño C S, Seedorf H, Kirk M R, Ganesh S, McEwan J C, Janssen P H. Two different bacterial community types are linked with the low-methane emission trait in sheep. PLoS One, 2014, 9(7): e103171

[10] Danielsson R, Dicksved J, Sun L, Gonda H, Müller B, Schnürer A, Bertilsson J. Methane production in dairy cows correlates with rumen methanogenic and bacterial community structure. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8: 226

[11] Pitta D, Indugu N, Narayan K, Hennessy M. Symposium review: understanding the role of the rumen microbiome in enteric methane mitigation and productivity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2022, 105(10): 8569–8585

[12] Solomon R, Wein T, Levy B, Eshed S, Dror R, Reiss V, Zehavi T, Furman O, Mizrahi I, Jami E. Protozoa populations are ecosystem engineers that shape prokaryotic community structure and function of the rumen microbial ecosystem. ISME Journal, 2022, 16(4): 1187–1197

[13] Liu L Y, Xie G J, Ding J, Liu B F, Xing D F, Ren N Q, Wang Q. Microbial methane emissions from the non-methanogenesis processes: a critical review. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 806(Pt 4): 151362

[14] Li Y, Jin W, Cheng Y, Zhu W. Effect of the associated methanogen Methanobrevibacter thaueri on the dynamic profile of end and intermediate metabolites of anaerobic fungus Piromyces sp. F1. Current Microbiology, 2016, 73(3): 434–441

[15] Cheng Y F, Edwards J E, Allison G G, Zhu W Y, Theodorou M K. Diversity and activity of enriched ruminal cultures of anaerobic fungi and methanogens grown together on lignocellulose in consecutive batch culture. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(20): 4821–4828

[16] Reisinger A, Clark H, Cowie A L, Emmet-Booth J, Gonzalez Fischer C, Herrero M, Howden M, Leahy S. How necessary and feasible are reductions of methane emissions from livestock to support stringent temperature goals. Philosophical Transactions A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 2021, 379(2210): 20200452

[17] Huws S A, Creevey C J, Oyama L B, Mizrahi I, Denman S E, Popova M, Muñoz-Tamayo R, Forano E, Waters S M, Hess M, Tapio I, Smidt H, Krizsan S J, Yáñez-Ruiz D R, Belanche A, Guan L, Gruninger R J, McAllister T A, Newbold C J, Roehe R, Dewhurst R J, Snelling T J, Watson M, Suen G, Hart E H, Kingston-Smith A H, Scollan N D, do Prado R M, Pilau E J, Mantovani H C, Attwood G T, Edwards J E, McEwan N R, Morrisson S, Mayorga O L, Elliott C, Morgavi D P. Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018, 9: 2161

[18] Söllinger A, Schwab C, Weinmaier T, Loy A, Tveit A T, Schleper C, Urich T. Phylogenetic and genomic analysis of Methanomassiliicoccales in wetlands and animal intestinal tracts reveals clade-specific habitat preferences. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2016, 92(1): fiv149

[19] Li Y, Leahy S C, Jeyanathan J, Henderson G, Cox F, Altermann E, Kelly W J, Lambie S C, Janssen P H, Rakonjac J, Attwood G T. The complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon ISO4-H5 provides insights into the methylotrophic lifestyle of a ruminal representative of the Methanomassiliicoccales. Standards in Genomic Sciences, 2016, 11(1): 59

[20] Bueno de Mesquita C P, Wu D, Tringe S G. Methyl-based methanogenesis: an ecological and genomic review. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 2023, 87(1): e0002422

[21] Ungerfeld E M. Inhibition of rumen methanogenesis and ruminant productivity: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2018, 5: 113

[22] Liu Y, Whitman W B. Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008, 1125(1): 171–189

[23] Lang K, Schuldes J, Klingl A, Poehlein A, Daniel R, Brunea A. New mode of energy metabolism in the seventh order of methanogens as revealed by comparative genome analysis of “Candidatus methanoplasma termitum”. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2015, 81(4): 1338–1352

[24] Beauchemin K A, Ungerfeld E M, Abdalla A L, Alvarez C, Arndt C, Becquet P, Benchaar C, Berndt A, Mauricio R M, McAllister T A, Oyhantçabal W, Salami S A, Shalloo L, Sun Y, Tricarico J, Uwizeye A, De Camillis C, Bernoux M, Robinson T, Kebreab E. Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science, 2022, 105(12): 9297–9326

[25] Galyean M L, Hales K E. Feeding management strategies to mitigate methane and improve production efficiency in feedlot cattle. Animals, 2023, 13(4): 758

[26] Vargas J, Ungerfeld E, Muñoz C, DiLorenzo N. Feeding strategies to mitigate enteric methane emission from ruminants in grassland systems. Animals, 2022, 12(9): 1132

[27] Hammond K J, Jones A K, Humphries D J, Crompton L A, Reynolds C K. Effects of diet forage source and neutral detergent fiber content on milk production of dairy cattle and methane emissions determined using GreenFeed and respiration chamber techniques. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(10): 7904–7917

[28] Gislon G, Colombini S, Borreani G, Crovetto G M, Sandrucci A, Galassi G, Tabacco E, Rapetti L. Milk production, methane emissions, nitrogen, and energy balance of cows fed diets based on different forage systems. Journal of Dairy Science, 2020, 103(9): 8048–8061

[29] Martin C, Ferlay A, Mosoni P, Rochette Y, Chilliard Y, Doreau M. Increasing linseed supply in dairy cow diets based on hay or corn silage: effect on enteric methane emission, rumen microbial fermentation, and digestion. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(5): 3445–3456

[30] Patra A K, Yu Z. Effects of essential oils on methane production and fermentation by, and abundance and diversity of, rumen microbial populations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2012, 78(12): 4271–4280

[31] Zhang X M, Medrano R F, Wang M, Beauchemin K A, Ma Z Y, Wang R, Wen J N, Lukuyu B A, Tan Z L, He J H. Corn oil supplementation enhances hydrogen use for biohydrogenation, inhibits methanogenesis, and alters fermentation pathways and the microbial community in the rumen of goats. Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 97(12): 4999–5008

[32] Judy J V, Bachman G C, Brown-Brandl T M, Fernando S C, Hales K E, Miller P S, Stowell R R, Kononoff P J. Reducing methane production with corn oil and calcium sulfate: Responses on whole-animal energy and nitrogen balance in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(3): 2054–2067

[33] Crossland W L, Tedeschi L O, Callaway T R, Miller M D, Smith W B, Cravey M. Effects of rotating antibiotic and ionophore feed additives on volatile fatty acid production, potential for methane production, and microbial populations of steers consuming a moderate-forage diet. Journal of Animal Science, 2017, 95(10): 4554–4567

[34] Melchior E A, Hales K E, Lindholm-Perry A K, Freetly H C, Wells J E, Hemphill C N, Wickersham T A, Sawyer J E, Myer P R. The effects of feeding monensin on rumen microbial communities and methanogenesis in bred heifers fed in a drylot. Livestock Science, 2018, 212: 131–136

[35] Appuhamy J A D R N, Strathe A B, Jayasundara S, Wagner-Riddle C, Dijkstra J, France J, Kebreab E. Anti-methanogenic effects of monensin in dairy and beef cattle: a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(8): 5161–5173

[36] Benchaar C. Diet supplementation with cinnamon oil, cinnamaldehyde, or monensin does not reduce enteric methane production of dairy cows. Animal, 2016, 10(3): 418–425

[37] Torres R N S, Paschoaloto J R, Ezequiel J M B, da Silva D A V, Almeida M T C. Meta-analysis of the effects of essential oil as an alternative to monensin in diets for beef cattle. Veterinary Journal, 2021, 272: 105659

[38] Dai X, Kalscheur K F, Huhtanen P, Faciola A P. Effects of ruminal protozoa on methane emissions in ruminants—A meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2022, 105(9): 7482–7491

[39] Abecia L, Toral P G, Martín-García A I, Martínez G, Tomkins N W, Molina-Alcaide E, Newbold C J, Yáñez-Ruiz D R. Effect of bromochloromethane on methane emission, rumen fermentation pattern, milk yield, and fatty acid profile in lactating dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science, 2012, 95(4): 2027–2036

[40] Allen K D, White R H. Chapter seventeen—Identification of the radical SAM enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of methanopterin and coenzyme F420 in methanogens. In: Bandarian V, ed. Methods in Enzymology. Academic Press, 2018, 606: 461–483

[41] Kung L Jr, Hession A O, Bracht J P. Inhibition of sulfate reduction to sulfide by 9,10-anthraquinone in in vitro ruminal fermentations. Journal of Dairy Science, 1998, 81(8): 2251–2256

[42] Aguinaga Casañas M A, Rangkasenee N, Krattenmacher N, Thaller G, Metges C C, Kuhla B. Methyl-coenzyme M reductase A as an indicator to estimate methane production from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2015, 98(6): 4074–4083

[43] Dijkstra J, Bannink A, France J, Kebreab E, van Gastelen S. Short communication: Antimethanogenic effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol depend on supplementation dose, dietary fiber content, and cattle type. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(10): 9041–9047

[44] Romero-Perez A, Okine E K, McGinn S M, Guan L L, Oba M, Duval S M, Kindermann M, Beauchemin K A. The potential of 3-nitrooxypropanol to lower enteric methane emissions from beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 92(10): 4682–4693

[45] Melgar A, Lage C F A, Nedelkov K, Räisänen S E, Stefenoni H, Fetter M E, Chen X, Oh J, Duval S, Kindermann M, Walker N D, Hristov A N. Enteric methane emission, milk production, and composition of dairy cows fed 3-nitrooxypropanol. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(1): 357–366

[46] Jayanegara A, Sarwono K A, Kondo M, Matsui H, Ridla M, Laconi E B, Nahrowi . Use of 3-nitrooxypropanol as feed additive for mitigating enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a meta-analysis. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 17(3): 650–656

[47] Martinez-Fernandez G, Duval S, Kindermann M, Schirra H J, Denman S E, McSweeney C S. 3-NOP vs. halogenated compound: methane production, ruminal fermentation and microbial community response in forage fed cattle. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018, 9: 1582

[48] Uddin M E, Tricarico J M, Kebreab E. Impact of nitrate and 3-nitrooxypropanol on the carbon footprints of milk from cattle produced in confined-feeding systems across regions in the United States: a life cycle analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2022, 105(6): 5074–5083

[49] Darabighane B, Salem A Z M, Mirzaei Aghjehgheshlagh F, Mahdavi A, Zarei A, Elghandour M M M Y, López S. Environmental efficiency of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on methane production in dairy and beef cattle via a meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2019, 26(4): 3651–3658

[50] Oh J, Harper M, Melgar A, Compart D M P, Hristov A N. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae-based direct-fed microbial and exogenous enzyme products on enteric methane emission and productivity in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(7): 6065–6075

[51] Hassan A, Gado H, Anele U Y, Berasain M A M, Salem A Z M. Influence of dietary probiotic inclusion on growth performance, nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation activities and methane production in growing lambs. Animal Biotechnology, 2020, 31(4): 365–372

[52] Philippeau C, Lettat A, Martin C, Silberberg M, Morgavi D P, Ferlay A, Berger C, Nozière P. Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal characteristics, methane emission, and milk fatty acid composition in cows fed high- or low-starch diets. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(4): 2637–2650

[53] Villar M L, Hegarty R S, Nolan J V, Godwin I R, Mcphee M. The effect of dietary nitrate and canola oil alone or in combination on fermentation, digesta kinetics and methane emissions from cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 259: 114294

[54] Wu H, Meng Q, Yu Z. Effect of pH buffering capacity and sources of dietary sulfur on rumen fermentation, sulfide production, methane production, sulfate reducing bacteria, and total Archaea in in vitro rumen cultures. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 186: 25–33

[55] Paul S S, Deb S M, Singh D. Isolation and characterization of novel sulphate-reducing Fusobacterium sp and their effects on in vitro methane emission and digestion of wheat straw by rumen fluid from Indian riverine buffaloes. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2011, 166−167: 132−140

[56] Lee C, Araujo R C, Koenig K M, Beauchemin K A. Effects of encapsulated nitrate on growth performance, nitrate toxicity, and enteric methane emissions in beef steers: backgrounding phase. Journal of Animal Science, 2017, 95(8): 3700–3711

[57] Meller R A, Wenner B A, Ashworth J, Gehman A M, Lakritz J, Firkins J L. Potential roles of nitrate and live yeast culture in suppressing methane emission and influencing ruminal fermentation, digestibility, and milk production in lactating Jersey cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(7): 6144–6156

[58] Rebelo L R, Luna I C, Messana J D, Araujo R C, Simioni T A, Granja-Salcedo Y T, Vito E S, Lee C, Teixeira I A M A, Rooke J A, Berchielli T T. Effect of replacing soybean meal with urea or encapsulated nitrate with or without elemental sulfur on nitrogen digestion and methane emissions in feedlot cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 257: 114293

[59] Ortiz-Chura A, Gere J, Marcoppido G, Depetris G, Cravero S, Faverín C, Pinares-Patiño C, Cataldi A, Cerón-Cucchi M E. Dynamics of the ruminal microbial ecosystem, and inhibition of methanogenesis and propiogenesis in response to nitrate feeding to Holstein calves. Animal Nutrition, 2021, 7(4): 1205–1218

[60] Vanegas J L, González J, Alvir M R, Carro M D. Influence of malic acid-heat treatment for protecting sunflower protein against ruminal degradation on in vitro methane production: a comparison with the use of malic acid as an additive. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2017, 228: 123–131

[61] Wallace R J, Wood T A, Rowe A, Price J, Yanez D R, Williams S P, Newbold C J. Encapsulated fumaric acid as a means of decreasing ruminal methane emissions. International Congress Series, 2006, 1293: 148–151

[62] Foley P A, Kenny D A, Lovett D K, Callan J J, Boland T M, O’Mara F P. Effect of DL-malic acid supplementation on feed intake, methane emissions, and performance of lactating dairy cows at pasture. Journal of Dairy Science, 2009, 92(7): 3258–3264

[63] Cobellis G, Trabalza-Marinucci M, Yu Z. Critical evaluation of essential oils as rumen modifiers in ruminant nutrition: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 545–546: 556–568

[64] Rira M, Morgavi D P, Popova M, Maxin G, Doreau M. Microbial colonisation of tannin-rich tropical plants: interplay between degradability, methane production and tannin disappearance in the rumen. Animal, 2022, 16(8): 100589

[65] Christensen R G, Eun J S, Yang S Y, Min B R, Macadam J W. In vitro effects of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) pasture on ruminal fermentation, microbial population, and methane production. Professional Animal Scientist, 2017, 33(4): 451–460

[66] Min B R, Solaiman S, Waldrip H M, Parker D, Todd R W, Brauer D. Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a review of plant tannin mitigation options. Animal Nutrition, 2020, 6(3): 231–246

[67] Animut G, Puchala R, Goetsch A L, Patra A K, Sahlu T, Varel V H, Wells J. Methane emission by goats consuming diets with different levels of condensed tannins from lespedeza. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008, 144(3−4): 212−227

[68] Krueger W K, Gutierrez-Bañuelos H, Carstens G E, Min B R, Pinchak W E, Gomez R R, Anderson R C, Krueger N A, Forbes T D A. Effects of dietary tannin source on performance, feed efficiency, ruminal fermentation, and carcass and non-carcass traits in steers fed a high-grain diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2010, 159(1−2): 1−9

[69] Min B R, Hernandez K, Pinchak W E, Anderson R C, Miller J E, Valencia E. Effects of plant tannin extracts supplementation on animal performance and gastrointestinal parasites infestation in steers grazing winter wheat. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 2015, 5(3): 343–350

[70] Jayanegara A, Goel G, Makkar H P S, Becker K. Divergence between purified hydrolysable and condensed tannin effects on methane emission, rumen fermentation and microbial population in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2015, 209: 60−68

[71] He L, Chen N, Lv H, Wang C, Zhou W, Chen X, Zhang Q. Gallic acid influencing fermentation quality, nitrogen distribution and bacterial community of high-moisture mulberry leaves and stylo silage. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 295: 122255

[72] Rira M, Morgavi D P, Genestoux L, Djibiri S, Sekhri I, Doreau M. Methanogenic potential of tropical feeds rich in hydrolyzable tannins1,2. Journal of Animal Science, 2019, 97(7): 2700–2710

[73] Ampapon T, Phesatcha K, Wanapat M. Effects of phytonutrients on ruminal fermentation, digestibility, and microorganisms in swamp buffaloes. Animals, 2019, 9(9): 671

[74] Ampapon T, Wanapat M. Dietary rambutan peel powder as a rumen modifier in beef cattle. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2020, 33(5): 763–769

[75] Matra M, Totakul P, Wanapat M. Utilization of dragon fruit waste by-products and non-protein nitrogen source: effects on in vitro rumen fermentation, nutrients degradability and methane production. Livestock Science, 2021, 243: 104386

[76] Wanapat M, Viennasay B, Matra M, Totakul P, Phesatcha B, Ampapon T, Wanapat S. Supplementation of fruit peel pellet containing phytonutrients to manipulate rumen pH, fermentation efficiency, nutrient digestibility and microbial protein synthesis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2021, 101(11): 4543–4550

[77] Lima P R, Apdini T, Freire A S, Santana A S, Moura L M L, Nascimento J C S, Rodrigues R T S, Dijkstra J, Garcez Neto A F, Queiroz M A A, Menezes D R. Dietary supplementation with tannin and soybean oil on intake, digestibility, feeding behavior, ruminal protozoa and methane emission in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2019, 249: 10–17

[78] Ramirez-Restrepo C A, Tan C, O’neill C J, Lopez-Villalobos N, Padmanabha J, Wang J, Mcsweeney C S. Methane production, fermentation characteristics, and microbial profiles in the rumen of tropical cattle fed tea seed saponin supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016, 216: 58–67

[79] Guyader J, Eugène M, Doreau M, Morgavi D P, Gérard C, Martin C. Tea saponin reduced methanogenesis in vitro but increased methane yield in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(3): 1845–1855

[80] Min B R, Parker D, Brauer D, Waldrip H, Lockard C, Hales K, Akbay A, Augyte S. The role of seaweed as a potential dietary supplementation for enteric methane mitigation in ruminants: challenges and opportunities. Animal Nutrition, 2021, 7(4): 1371–1387

[81] Wang Y, Xu Z, Bach S J, Mcallister T A. Effects of phlorotannins from Ascophyllum nodosum (brown seaweed) on in vitro ruminal digestion of mixed forage or barley grain. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2008, 145(1−4): 375−395

[82] Roque B M, Venegas M, Kinley R D, de Nys R, Duarte T L, Yang X, Kebreab E. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLoS One, 2021, 16(3): e0247820

[83] Li X, Norman H C, Kinley R D, Laurence M, Wilmot M, Bender H, De Nys R, Tomkins N. Asparagopsis taxiformis decreases enteric methane production from sheep. Animal Production Science, 2018, 58(4): 681–688

Acknowledgements

This work was partly funded by National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFA1304201) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (32102573).

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Jian Sun, Guangyong Zhao, and Meng M. Li declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2023. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)