How to Measure Methane Emissions from Cattle

Simple Summary

Cattle, like other ruminant animals, produce methane gas as part of their normal digestion. This process, called enteric fermentation, happens in their rumen, a special stomach compartment where microbes break down food. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, making the methane produced by cattle a significant environmental concern. Scientists are working hard to understand how much methane cattle produce, what factors like their diet and age influence this production, and what strategies can be used to reduce these emissions without negatively affecting animal health or productivity. This article explores the science behind methane production in cattle, the different ways researchers measure it, the various factors that affect how much is produced, and the potential methods to lower these emissions for a more sustainable livestock industry.

Introduction

The relationship between livestock and the environment has become an increasingly prominent area of scientific inquiry, particularly concerning the emission of greenhouse gases. Among these gases, methane (CH₄) produced during enteric fermentation in ruminant animals, particularly cattle, has gained significant attention due to its substantial global warming potential. The recognition of enteric methane as a significant contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has evolved over several decades. Early studies highlighted the unique digestive physiology of ruminants and the role of anaerobic microbes in their foregut (rumen), leading to the production of methane as a byproduct.

Initially, research focused on understanding the fundamental biology of this process, exploring the microbial communities responsible for methanogenesis and the metabolic pathways involved. As environmental concerns grew, the quantification of methane emissions from livestock became a critical area of investigation. Early estimation methods relied on dietary characteristics and animal populations. However, the need for more accurate measurements led to the development and refinement of direct measurement techniques. Respiration chambers (Figure 1), considered the ‘gold standard’, provided controlled environments for precise methane quantification. The introduction of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) tracer technique offered a practical approach for measuring emissions in grazing animals, enabling studies under more natural production conditions. More recently, automated systems like GreenFeed have emerged as tools for repeated measurements on individual animals in less confined settings.

Figure 1. Respiration chambers

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-06-07/new-zealand-scientists-breed-sheep-that-fart-and-burp-less/9841546

Over time, research expanded beyond mere quantification to explore the factors influencing methane production. Studies investigated the impact of diet composition, including forage-to-concentrate ratios, fiber content, and the inclusion of specific feed additives, on methane output. Animal-related factors such as age, breed, physiological state (growing, lactating, dry), and body weight were also identified as important determinants of methane emissions. Furthermore, the development of prediction models aimed at estimating methane emissions based on readily available animal and dietary data provides valuable tools for inventory reporting and the evaluation of mitigation strategies. 

Measurement Techniques for Enteric Methane Emissions

Accurate measurement of enteric methane emissions is fundamental to understanding the magnitude of this environmental impact and evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Several techniques have been developed and employed, each with its advantages and limitations.

Respiration chambers

Respiration chambers are often considered the 'gold standard' for measuring methane emissions due to the controlled environment they provide. In this method, animals are housed in sealed chambers where the air composition, including methane concentration, is continuously monitored over a period of time. This allows for a precise quantification of the total methane produced by the animal. Studies have utilized respiration chambers to quantify methane emissions from cattle fed various diets and at different physiological stages. However, the high cost and labor requirements, along with the potential for the confined environment to affect animal behavior and physiology, limit their suitability for large-scale studies.

The sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) tracer technique (Figure 2) offers a more practical approach for measuring methane emissions, particularly in grazing conditions. This technique involves introducing a small, known amount of SF₆ into the rumen via a bolus. Breath samples are collected near the animal's nose and mouth, and the ratio of methane to SF₆ is used to estimate the methane emission rate. The SF₆ technique has been widely used in Latin America and other regions to assess methane emissions from beef and dairy cattle under various grazing systems and nutritional evaluations. While more suitable for field studies than respiration chambers, the SF₆ method has been criticized for potentially higher variability in measurements compared to respiration chambers or GreenFeed systems. Guidelines for the proper implementation of this technique have been published to minimize inconsistencies.

Figure 2. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) system

Source: https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(17)31192-X/fulltext

GreenFeed system

Automated methane monitoring systems, such as the GreenFeed system (Figure 3), have gained popularity for their ability to measure methane emissions from individual animals frequently and with less constraint. These systems typically involve a feeding station that delivers a small reward, and while the animal is eating, sensors measure the concentration of methane and carbon dioxide in its breath. The GreenFeed system allows for the collection of numerous short-term measurements over several days, providing a good estimate of daily methane production. Studies have compared methane emission estimates from GreenFeed with those obtained from respiration chambers and SF₆ tracer techniques, generally showing reasonable correlations, although numerical rankings of animals by methane output might differ. The GreenFeed system is considered suitable for large-scale studies needed for genetic evaluations.

Figure 3. The GreenFeed system 

Source: https://www.c-lockinc.com/products/emissions-monitoring/greenfeed-pasture-system

Hand-held laser methane detectors

Other emerging technologies, such as hand-held laser methane detectors (LMD) (Figure 4), are being explored for their potential in on-farm quantification of enteric methane emissions. LMDs can measure methane concentrations in the air near the animal's breath and eructation, offering a potentially rapid and non-invasive method for field assessments. Research has focused on establishing standardized procedures for using LMDs to detect differences in methane emissions related to dietary changes. While promising for field applications, further research is needed to fully validate their accuracy and reliability compared to established methods.

Figure 4. Hand-held laser methane detectors 

Source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000724

The choice of measurement technique depends on the specific research question, available resources, and the production system being studied. Each method contributes valuable data to the understanding of enteric methane emissions from cattle.

Conclusion

In conclusion, several techniques exist for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle, each with its advantages and limitations. Respiration chambers are often considered the 'gold standard' due to their ability to measure total methane output. However, their high cost and low throughput make them unsuitable for large-scale studies. The sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique offers a less restrictive approach for measuring methane in various settings, including grazing systems, but has shown variability and may underestimate emissions compared to respiration chambers. The GreenFeed (GF) system provides automated measurements during short animal visits, but its agreement with respiration chambers has been inconsistent, and results are sensitive to animal behavior. More recently, the laser methane detector (LMD) has emerged as a portable option for on-farm measurements, though standardization and repeatability remain challenges.

Ultimately, the selection of a measurement technique depends on the specific research goals, available resources, and the number of animals involved. Benchmarking alternative methods against respiration chambers remains crucial for understanding their accuracy and precision.

References

• Hammond, K. J., Humphries, D. J., Crompton, L. A., Green, C., & Reynolds, C. K. (2015). Methane emissions from cattle: Estimates from short-term measurements using a GreenFeed system compared with measurements obtained using respiration chambers or sulphur hexafluoride tracer. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 203, 41-52. 
• Ungerfeld, E. M., Early, R. J., McBride, B. W., Mallmann, C. A., Waghorn, G. C., & Cabezas-García, E. H. (2016). Effect of feeding ground and pelleted straw on intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and methane production of feedlot cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 216, 177-182. 
• Ellis, J. L., Kebreab, E., Odongo, N. E., McBride, B. W., Okine, E. K., & France, J. (2007). Prediction of methane production from dairy and beef cattle. Journal of dairy science, 90(7), 3456–3466. 
• Richardson, C. M., Nguyen, T. T. T., Abdelsayed, M., Moate, P. J., Williams, S. R. O., Chud, T. C. S., Schenkel, F. S., Goddard, M. E., van den Berg, I., Cocks, B. G., Marett, L. C., Wales, W. J., & Pryce, J. E. (2021). Genetic parameters for methane emission traits in Australian dairy cows. Journal of dairy science, 104(1), 539–549. 
• Black, J. L., Davison, T. M., & Box, I. (2021). Methane Emissions from Ruminants in Australia: Mitigation Potential and Applicability of Mitigation Strategies. Animals, 11(4), 951. 
• Gere, J. I., Restovich, S. B., Mattera, J., Cattoni, M. I., Ortiz-Chura, A., Posse, G., & Cerón-Cucchi, M. E. (2024). Enteric Methane Emission from Cattle Grazing Systems with Cover Crops and Legume–Grass Pasture. Animals, 14(16), 2933. 
• Marumo, J. L., LaPierre, P. A., & Van Amburgh, M. E. (2024). Enteric Methane Emissions Prediction in Dairy Cattle and Effects of Monensin on Methane Emissions: A Meta-Analysis. Animals, 14(19), 3404. 
• Benetel, G., Fagundes, G. M., d.Méo-Filho, P., Silva, T. d. S., Welter, K. C., Melo, F. A., Lobo, A. A. G., Frighetto, R. T. S., Berndt, A., Muir, J. P., & Bueno, I. C. d. S. (2024). Essential Oils in Nellore Beef Cattle In Vivo: Impact on Performance, Digestibility, and Enteric Methane Emissions. Animals, 14(16), 2411. 
• Lee, H., Kim, M., Masaki, T., Ikuta, K., Iwamoto, E., Oikawa, K., ... & Roh, S. (2024). Exploring the link between ruminal methane production and physiological resilience in Japanese Black cattle during fattening. 
• Dearman, B., Marschner, P., & Bentham, R. H. (2006). Methane production and microbial community structure in single-stage batch and sequential batch systems anaerobically co-digesting food waste and biosolids. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 69(5), 589–596. 
• Rajkumar, K., Karunakaran, R., Bharathidhasan, A., Gnanaraj, P. T., & Vijayarani, P. (2023). Impact of Supplementing Essential Oils on Reduction of Enteric Methane Emission in Indigenous Dairy Cattle. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research, 42(4), 546-551. 
• Loza, C., Cerón-Cucchi, M. E., Cabezas-Garcia, E. H., Ortiz-Chura, A., Gualdrón-Duarte, L., & Gere, J. I. (2024). On the use of the SF6 gas tracer technique in Latin America for measuring methane emissions in ruminants: a review and analysis. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 1-30.
• Gianvecchio, S. B., Sakamoto, L. S., Souza, L. L., Benfica, L. F., Marcatto, J. O. S., Paula, E. M., Malheiros, J. M., Canesin, R. C., Bonilha, S. F. M., Albuquerque, L. G., & Mercadante, M. E. Z. (2024). Is apparent digestibility associated with residual feed intake and enteric methane emission in Nellore cattle? Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 53, e20230121. 
• Gadzama, I. U. (2025). GreenFeed System as a tool for measuring methane emissions from ruminants. Wikifarmer. Available online https://wikifarmer.com/library/en/article/greenfeed-system-as-a-tool-for-measuring-methane-emissions-from-ruminants
• Goopy, J. P., Chang, C., & Tomkins, N. (2016). A comparison of methodologies for measuring methane emissions from ruminants. Methods for measuring greenhouse gas balances and evaluating mitigation options in smallholder agriculture, 97-117. 
• Wang, Y., Song, W., Wang, Q., Yang, F., & Yan, Z. (2024). Predicting Enteric Methane Emissions from Dairy and Beef Cattle Using Nutrient Composition and Intake Variables. Animals, 14(15), 2221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152221
• Min, B.-R., Lee, S., Jung, H., Miller, D. N., & Chen, R. (2022). Enteric Methane Emissions and Animal Performance in Dairy and Beef Cattle Production: Strategies, Opportunities, and Impact of Reducing Emissions. Animals, 12(8), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080948
• Hernández, O., López, A., Ceron-Cucchi, M. E., Alabi, C. D. A., Loza, C., Juárez Sequeira, A. V., Fissolo, H. M., García, E. M., & Gere, J. I. (2024). Whole Cottonseed as an Effective Strategy to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emissions in Cattle Fed Low-Quality Forages †. Agriculture, 14(9), 1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091384
• Ncho, C. M., Kim, S. H., Rang, S. A., & Lee, S. S. (2024). A meta-analysis of probiotic interventions to mitigate ruminal methane emissions in cattle: implications for sustainable livestock farming. Animal, 18, 101180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101180
• Kim, M. H., Lee, S. S., Cho, Y. M., Choi, Y. H., Lim, J. S., Kim, J. H., & Lee, S. M. (2022). Application of a laser methane detector for measuring methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 100(8), skac211. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac211
• Kobza, A. M., McDermott, R. L., Benton, J. R., Norman, M. M., Zou, L., MacDonald, J. C., & Erickson, G. E. (2024). Effect of feeding palm oil products on finishing cattle performance, carcass characteristics, and methane production. Journal of Animal Science, 102(Suppl 3), 349–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae234.397
• Vargas, J. J., Manriquez, D., Swenson, M., Carvalho, P. H. V., & Place, S. E. (2025). Enteric methane emission classification and ranking of growing steers during the backgrounding and finishing phases. Journal of animal science, 103, skaf046. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf046
• Gadzama, I.U. (2025). Asparagopsis Seaweed as a Feed Supplement for Dairy Cows. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (NJAST), 7(4), 63 - 84. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388847026_Asparagopsis_Seaweed_as_a_Feed_Supplement_for_Dairy_Cows
• Roque, B. M., Salmun, P. R., Kinley, R. D., & Kebreab, E. (2024). Asparagopsis as a feed additive to reduce enteric methane emissions in beef cattle. Translational Animal Science, 8(1), txae116. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae116