Accelerating climate solutions in agriculture: Why reducing methane from livestock is an urgent opportunity 

For the past 60 years, global food systems have undergone a massive transformation. Significant increases in production and productivity, as well as reductions in food costs, have created a more abundant food supply that has greatly reduced poverty and hunger around the world. But these benefits have also come with environmental and climate costs. Agriculture is now responsible for 40% of human-caused methane emissions, making it the largest source of this potent and harmful gas to the atmosphere.  

Methane alone is responsible for nearly half¹ of the 1.1°C global temperature rise we’re already experiencing, with agricultural methane contributing around 0.2°C of warming – and its emissions are only increasing. Reducing them is critical to keeping warming to manageable levels. That’s why CATF is working to cut agricultural methane emissions, alongside our work to mitigate methane pollution from the energy and waste sectors. 

Agriculture methane emissions come from three main sources:²

• Enteric Emissions (73%): Enteric methane is formed in the digestive system of ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, camels) when food is being broken down by microorganisms in the rumen, one of their stomachs. Ruminants expel this methane, mainly by burping (95%). 

• Manure Management (7%): When manure from ruminants and other livestock is stored, it releases methane as it is broken down by microorganisms. 

• Rice Production (20%): When rice is grown, fields are flooded and bacteria in the soil breaks down organic matter and release methane. 

CATF focuses on emissions from livestock – specifically enteric and manure emissions – which account for 80% of all methane produced by agriculture.³ Why? For one, we have solutions available right now and there is a need to develop innovative new solutions – something CATF specializes in. But to address these emissions, we first need to understand where they come from and how they behave. 

Methane emissions from livestock vary across the globe

Globally, raising livestock emits almost 120 million tonnes of methane (or 3.3 billion tonnes of CO₂e) per year into the atmosphere.⁴ These are called absolute methane emissions, and they occur where livestock are raised and are not uniformly distributed across all countries in the world. Estimated national emissions are uncertain – methane emissions are quite variable from place to place and even from animal to animal. However, the best available global data indicates that wealthy countries (with 14% of global population) have disproportionate emissions from livestock – about 22% (see Figure 1). The relative contributions of enteric fermentation and manure management vary across these countries, with emissions from manure being more relevant in high income countries (~18% of livestock emissions) where a greater number of confined livestock operations with intensive manure management systems occur. Manure systems only account for 4-8% of livestock emissions in lower- and middle-income countries. Likewise, the enteric emissions contribution of grazing and confined animals varies across countries, and this is important because not all solutions are applicable for all production systems. 

Figure 1. Livestock methane emissions by source and percentage of global population living in countries, by country income

The way livestock is produced can greatly affect the methane intensity of animal products

Methane emissions intensity is a metric that looks at the methane emitted per pound or kilogram of milk or beef produced. Figure 2 shows how the average emissions intensity varies greatly across different countries based on their income level. Intensities are 6-16 times higher in the lowest-income countries than they are in the high-income countries. There are many reasons for this observed difference, but overall, more efficient systems have lower methane intensity, and high-income countries usually have systems with more productive cows and beef animals that gain weight faster and are slaughtered at a younger age. Figure 2 makes clear that there are opportunities to reduce overall methane emissions by decreasing emissions intensity of meat and dairy products. 

Figure 2. Average milk and meat⁵ (beef and pork) emissions intensity per country income level (kg of methane per kg of milk and meat)

How then can we decrease methane emissions from livestock production? 

Globally, the agriculture sector must decrease its absolute methane emissions by 30-38 Mt/year to limit global temperature rise to 1.5° C. The challenge is that this reduction must be achieved in the context of increasing demand for livestock products, especially from low and middle-income countries. In Africa, animal protein demand is projected to increase by 102% by 2050.⁶ Therefore, reducing both methane emissions intensity of agriculture products and absolute methane emissions is critical.  

The strategy to achieve emissions reduction will vary depending on the country and the systems in which animals are produced. There are technologies and practices that can reduce emissions of livestock methane but overall, they can be grouped into two approaches:⁷ 

• Making livestock agriculture more efficient: The lower emissions intensity in wealthy nations is due to more efficient livestock agriculture. Beef and dairy production can be improved by adopting technologies and practices that enhance animal health, provide better diets, improve pasture management, and breed more productive animals. Although the greatest opportunity for improvement is in the middle- and low-income countries, further improving productivity in high-income countries can also reduce methane emissions, especially for beef.^{8, 9, 10} 

• Directly reducing enteric or manure emissions: Technologies and practices can lower emissions beyond what is achieved through efficiency gains, either by reducing enteric methane production (per animal per unit of time) or controlling emissions from manure systems. While many enteric emission reduction technologies are still in development –such as breeding for low methane emissions, vaccines, and manipulating rumen microbes – feed additives will be key, particularly in confined production systems. For manure management, many options exist such as solid-liquid separation systems, covering and flaring manure lagoons, aeration and chemical treatment of manure, and the use of anaerobic digestors. The applicability and efficacy of these technologies will also depend on how animals are raised and managed.¹¹ 

Both approaches are crucial to meeting the challenge of methane emissions from livestock. While research and development are currently underway to broaden the solutions available in the space, it is possible to use available technologies and practices to begin reducing both absolute livestock methane emissions, and agriculture products emissions intensity.¹²  

Successfully tackling agriculture methane also requires innovative agricultural policies 

It’s estimated that there are over 570 million livestock farms globally, 85% of which are less than 2 hectares. These farms vary greatly in size, approach to raising animals, access to feed, technology, technical assistance, and the applicability of methane reducing strategies and technologies across the globe and within countries.   As a result, regional strategies to tackle methane emissions from agriculture are needed.¹³ 

Current policies aimed at improving agricultural sustainability, including those aiming to reduce methane emissions from livestock, often rely on voluntary incentives. Globally, over $600 billion dollars are spent annually to support agriculture production, most of which were not developed with environmental benefits as part of their scope. Simply providing additional subsidies to accelerate technology adoption can be ineffective. A holistic, options-based approach designed with input from farmers and other stakeholders is essential, so farmers understand the opportunities ahead of them. 

To reduce emissions from livestock, countries should prioritize strategies that are aligned with the unique characteristics of their production systems. For example, Brazil has designed a sectorial plan¹⁴ for agriculture that supports the adoption of science-based practices proven to work for livestock farmers in the country. Uruguay, whose beef production represents 70% of the country’s exports, has detailed its strategy to reduce emissions from beef production in their Nationally Determined Contribution Plan,¹⁵ and through their National Policy of Climate Change, has been working with the beef sector to implement detailed actions to reduce the methane emissions intensity of beef. 

How does CATF support reducing methane from agriculture? 

Reducing methane emissions from agriculture is essential for rapidly slowing the pace of global warming. That’s why CATF is working to cut agricultural methane emissions, alongside our work to mitigate methane pollution from the energy and waste sectors. Successfully adopting the methane-reducing technologies and practices to do so will depend on regionally appropriate solutions, strong business models, access to credit, and effective policies and extension mechanisms developed in collaboration with the agricultural sector.  

For these reasons, CATF’s work in this space focuses on partnering with governments worldwide to prioritize methane mitigation in their agricultural plans and goals. We advocate for accelerating the development of methane-reducing technologies and practices, refining and creating new financing mechanisms, and advancing policies that support widespread adoption by farmers. The foundation of this work is always built upon: 

• Regionally tailored approaches that recognize the unique circumstances and opportunities presented by different geographies. 

• Government capacity building that focuses on the implementation of innovative policies and developing long-term solutions. 

• Engagement with the productive sector to accelerate the uptake of technologies and practices by farmers. 

• A systems approach that considers the impact of practices and technologies on upstream and downstream GHG emissions, water quality, biodiversity, and land use. 

• Prioritization of equity and fairness by considering the impact on local communities and vulnerable populations when discussing policies and supporting technologies and practices to reduce methane emissions from agriculture. 

---

Fußnoten

¹ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I, SPM, Fig 2. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_Figure_2.png

² The United Nations Environmental Program, Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2022). Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions.  https://www.ccacoalition.org/sites/default/files/resources//2021_Global-Methane_Assessment_full_0.pdf

³ Some argue that methane from agriculture should be treated differently than other sources of methane. However, once methane is in the atmosphere and until it’s broken down (about 12 years), it leads to additional warming just like any other methane molecule from other sources like fossil fuels and waste. Since agricultural practices greatly increase methane emissions above natural levels, this is changing our climate in a way that must be addressed.

Ferreira and McCabe. 2024. Focus on reducing methane pollution from all sources, not distraction over metrics. https://www.catf.us/resource/focus-reducing-methane-pollution-all-sources-not-distractions-over-metrics/

⁴ FAO Agriculture Emissions. Available on FAOSTAT

⁵ Milk calculated as milk equivalent accounts for all the milk used to produce dairy products such as cheese, yogurt, desserts, etc. Data excludes butterfat.

⁶ FAO 2018. The Future of Food and Agriculture.

⁷ It is important to note that efforts are also underway to reduce demand and therefore, consumption of meat and/or milk in certain geographies. If these efforts are successful, they could certainly complement efforts to reduce emissions by increasing efficiency and by directly reducing methane from animals, but this is not an approach that CATF works to advance.

⁸ Conditions vary within countries as well: in Argentina, methane intensity in calf production operations has been reported to vary from 1.1 kg to 1.9 kg of methane per kg of liveweight produced, a variation of ~70%. In Brazil, the Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation (Embrapa) has documented a decrease in methane emissions intensity of ~42% per kilo of beef cattle live weight in integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems by increasing productivity and reducing the time to slaughter of these animals (See references 9 and 10 for details).

⁹ Low Emissions Development of the Beef Cattle Sector in Argentina, 2017. Assuming a GWP of 28.

¹⁰ In Brazil, the Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation (Embrapa) has documented a decrease in methane emissions intensity of ~42% per kilo of beef cattle live weight in integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems by increasing productivity and reducing the time to slaughter of these animals. Personal communication, Dr. Roberto Guimaraes Junior, Embrapa Cerrados, Brazil. From weaning to slaughter, reductions per kg of live weight.

¹¹ Hegarty RS, Cortez Passetti RA, Dittmer KM, Wang Y, Shelton S, Emmet-Booth J, Wollenberg E, McAllister T, Leahy S, Beauchemin K, Gurwick N. 2021. An evaluation of emerging feed additives to reduce methane emissions from livestock. Edition 1. A report coordinated by Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC) initiative of the Global Research Alliance (GRA).

¹² Chang et al., 2021. The key role of production efficiency changes in livestock methane emission mitigation. AGU Advances, 2, e2021AV000391.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2021AV000391

¹³ For instance, for intensive dairy systems or beef feedlots, feed additives can be an important tool to reduce enteric emissions, and manure management practices can reduce emissions from manure. However, in grazing systems, the applicability of these tools is limited, and grazing management practices, integrated systems focusing on increasing productivity, and the use of breeding approaches are more likely to reduce methane emissions intensity. This means that even within a country, the levers producers, organizations, and governments should pull to reduce livestock methane emissions will vary. This variation must be carefully considered when reduction targets are established, and public commitments are made.  

¹⁴ Brazil, 2021. ABC+ Plan for Adaptation and Low Carbon Emissions in Agriculture.

¹⁵ República Oriental del Uruguay. Segunda Contribución Determinada a nivel Nacional al Acuerdo de Paris, 2022.