Cited by 31Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Mitigating methane emissions in grazing beef cattle with a seaweed-based feed additive: implications for climate-smart agriculture

Open access
Meo-Filho, Paulo, Ramirez-Agudelo, John F., Kebreab, Ermias·2024·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The ruminant livestock sector considerably contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. This study investigates the effectiveness of pelleted bromoform-containing seaweed ( Asparagopsis taxiformis ) (Brominata) as an enteric methane (CH 4 ) inhibitor in grazing beef cattle. The primary objective was to assess the impact of this antimethanogenic additive on enteric CH 4 emissions under real-world farm conditions. Twenty-four beef steers, crossbreeds of Wagyu and Angus, with an average liveweight of 399 ± 21.7 kg, were allocated to two treatment groups: Control and Brominata. These animals underwent regular weigh-ins every 14 d, and measurements of CH 4 , carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and hydrogen (H 2 ) emissions were conducted using the GreenFeed system. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.4, wherein the model incorporated fixed effects for treatment, time, their interaction, and a covariate, while accounting for animal variations as a random effect within each phase. Three phases of bromoform intake were identified: a 3-wk ramp-up phase, a 3-wk optimal phase, and a 2-wk decreasing phase. No differences were observed between the weekly initial and final liveweight, average daily gain, and predicted dry matter intake. During optimal and decreasing phases, average enteric CH 4 emissions were significantly reduced in steers that received Brominata supplementation compared to those without supplementation (115 vs. 185 g/d, respectively). Additionally, both groups had similar CO 2 emissions (6.8 vs. 7.2 kg/d), while H 2 emissions were lower in the control group (3.4 vs. 1.8 g/d). The findings suggest that pelleted bromoform-containing feed additive has the potential to reduce enteric CH 4 emissions from grazing beef cattle.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2410863121

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tools intended for grazing cattle generally remain early in development; CH4 vaccines show minimal or inconsistent in vivo effects, and red seaweed additives have so far produced only short-term reductions in small grazing trials.

    “Tools intended for grazing cattle generally remain early in development; for example, CH 4 vaccines show minimal or inconsistent in vivo effects (Beauchemin et al., 2022), and red seaweed additives have so far produced only short-term reductions in small grazing trials (Meo-Filho et al., 2024)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]IPCC, “ The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, V. Masson-Delmotte, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2021), pp. 923– 1054.
  2. [15]S. J. Rowe, Selection for divergent methane yield in New Zealand sheep—A ten-year perspective. Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 23, 306– 309 (2019).
  3. [43]C. Martin, Y. Rochette, D. Humphries, G. Renand, “ Greenfeed system” in Methods in Cattle Physiology and Behavior—Recommendations from the SmartCow Consortium, S. D. Mesgaran, Eds. (PUBLISSO, 2020), pp. 1– 6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meo-Filho, P., Ramirez-Agudelo, J. F., & Kebreab, E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Kebreab, Ermias
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2024-12-02
Volume
121
Issue
50
Pages
e2410863121-e2410863121
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W4404913182
Cited by
31
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2
FWCI
15.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of California, Davis
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
enteric methane mitigation, seaweed feed additives, Asparagopsis taxiformis, bromoform, grazing beef cattle, greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 emissions, hydrogen emission, climate-smart agriculture, average daily gain, dry matter intake
MeSH terms
Greenhouse Gases, Agriculture, Animals, Animal Feed, Carbon Dioxide, Cattle, Male, Methane, Seaweed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review