14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Agricultural methane emissions must be decreased by 11 to 30% of the 2010 level by 2030 and by 24 to 47% by 2050 to meet the 1.5 °C target. We identified three strategies to decrease product-based methane emissions while increasing animal productivity and five strategies to decrease absolute methane emissions without reducing animal productivity. Globally, 100% adoption of the most effective product-based and absolute methane emission mitigation strategy can meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050, because mitigation effects are offset by projected increases in methane. On a regional level, Europe but not Africa may be able to meet their contribution to the 1.5 °C target, highlighting the different challenges faced by high- and middle- and low-income countries.

          Abstract

          To meet the 1.5 °C target, methane (CH 4) from ruminants must be reduced by 11 to 30% by 2030 and 24 to 47% by 2050 compared to 2010 levels. A meta-analysis identified strategies to decrease product-based (PB; CH 4 per unit meat or milk) and absolute (ABS) enteric CH 4 emissions while maintaining or increasing animal productivity (AP; weight gain or milk yield). Next, the potential of different adoption rates of one PB or one ABS strategy to contribute to the 1.5 °C target was estimated. The database included findings from 430 peer-reviewed studies, which reported 98 mitigation strategies that can be classified into three categories: animal and feed management, diet formulation, and rumen manipulation. A random-effects meta-analysis weighted by inverse variance was carried out. Three PB strategies—namely, increasing feeding level, decreasing grass maturity, and decreasing dietary forage-to-concentrate ratio—decreased CH 4 per unit meat or milk by on average 12% and increased AP by a median of 17%. Five ABS strategies—namely CH 4 inhibitors, tanniferous forages, electron sinks, oils and fats, and oilseeds—decreased daily methane by on average 21%. Globally, only 100% adoption of the most effective PB and ABS strategies can meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050, because mitigation effects are offset by projected increases in CH 4 due to increasing milk and meat demand. Notably, by 2030 and 2050, low- and middle-income countries may not meet their contribution to the 1.5 °C target for this same reason, whereas high-income countries could meet their contributions due to only a minor projected increase in enteric CH 4 emissions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Introduction to Meta-Analysis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                pnas
                pnas
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                10 May 2022
                17 May 2022
                10 May 2022
                : 119
                : 20
                : e2111294119
                Affiliations
                [1] aIntegrated Sciences Division, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) , 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;
                [2] bDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA 16802;
                [3] cCollege of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho , Moscow, ID 83844;
                [4] dDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University , Fort Collins, CO 80523;
                [5] eAnimal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research , 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands;
                [6] fNatural Resources Institute Finland , 00790 Helsinki, Finland;
                [7] gSchool of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading , Reading RG6 6EU, United Kingdom;
                [8] hInstitut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (INRAE), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Université Clermont Auvergne , 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France;
                [9] iCollege of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California , Davis, CA 95616;
                [10] jDepartment of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich , 8092 Zürich, Switzerland;
                [11] kAnimal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre (AGRIC), Teagasc , Grange C15 PW93, Ireland;
                [12] lScotland’s Rural College , Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom;
                [13] mDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences , 1432 Aas, Norway;
                [14] nDe Heus Animal Nutrition , 6717 VE Ede, The Netherlands;
                [15] oEstación Experimental del Zaidín (EEZ), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) , 18008 Granada, Spain;
                [16] pDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University , Columbus, OH 43210
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: claudia.arndt@ 123456cgiar.org .

                Edited by Akkihebbal Ravishankara, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO; received June 25, 2021; accepted February 8, 2022

                Author contributions: C.A., A.N.H., J.D., A.B., A.R.B., L.A.C., M.A.E., D.E., E.K., M.K., M.M., and K.J.S. designed research; C.A. and A.N.H. performed research; A.B., L.A.C., and C.J.N. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; C.A., A.N.H., W.J.P., S.C.M., A.M.P., S.F.C., J.O., J.D., and A.B. analyzed data; C.A., A.N.H., W.J.P., S.C.M., J.D., A.B., A.R.B., L.A.C., M.A.E., M.K., M.M., C.M., C.K.R., A.S., J.B.V., D.R.Y.-R., and Z.Y. wrote the paper; C.A., A.N.H., S.C.M., A.M.P., S.F.C., and J.O. compiled database; S.F.C., J.O., J.D., A.B., L.A.C., M.A.E., E.K., M.K., M.M., C.M., C.K.R., A.S., K.J.S., J.B.V., and D.R.Y.-R. contributed materials; and D.E. helped with design of modeling scenarios.

                2Deceased September 11, 2016.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6276-1097
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0884-4203
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1827-3029
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8274-9968
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1906-5520
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3728-6885
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4894-0662
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3752-4804
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2111-0597
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4927-5617
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0833-1352
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9978-1171
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2265-2048
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4152-1190
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5750-2111
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6165-8522
                Article
                202111294
                10.1073/pnas.2111294119
                9171756
                35537050
                b09bd9ad-47f8-4f08-a521-fb5d4cff3abd
                Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                : 08 February 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) 501100002850
                Award ID: 016-2019-FONDECYT-BM-INC.INV
                Award Recipient : Claudia Arndt
                Funded by: USDA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 100005825
                Award ID: Project PEN 04539 and Accession Number 1000803
                Award Recipient : Alexander N Hristov
                Funded by: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) 501100006456
                Award ID: PCSL
                Award ID: Programme No. 2017.0119.2
                Award Recipient : Claudia Arndt
                Categories
                9
                Biological Sciences
                Sustainability Science

                methane,meta-analysis,ruminant,enteric,mitigation
                methane, meta-analysis, ruminant, enteric, mitigation

                Comments

                Comment on this article