Ruminants — cattle, sheep and goats — are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Methane produced during their digestion, known as “enteric methane,” accounts for nearly 60% of agricultural methane emissions and over 25% of all human-caused methane emissions. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with more than 80 times the warming power of CO2 over two decades.
While livestock methane is inherently tough to tackle, new techniques are emerging that offer a path forward. A recent WRI report outlined over 25 ways to reduce agricultural methane emissions, some of which show significant promise. In developing countries, a practical solution is to boost meat and milk yields per animal by improving feed — using better grazing, higher quality forages, supplemental crops or treated crop residues. But in developed countries, where productivity is already near its ceiling, reducing emissions will require newer and more innovative approaches.
The most rapidly emerging option today involves using feed additives to curb methane production during cows’ digestion. This has been shown to reduce enteric methane emissions by around 30% in feedlots.
But while feed additives are seeing some early uptake, they have yet to be widely adopted. Cost can be a barrier, alongside regulatory hurdles, infrastructure challenges and farmer skepticism. Further scaling these solutions will require the right policies as well as financial investment and innovation.
The key question is: What can governments and the private sector do to accelerate adoption?
Promising Science, Unscaled Solutions
A range of solutions to reduce enteric methane are moving beyond research and into early commercial use. Methane-inhibiting feed additives are furthest along in science thanks to decades of research, a relatively clear understanding of how they inhibit methane, and regulatory progress. Feed additives reduce emissions by 30% on average, with some showing reductions of over 90%. And strong private sector investment and public-private partnerships are helping boost adoption, bringing them closer to widespread use. (Other approaches involving genetics or antimethane vaccines remain in early-stage research due to cost, longer development timelines and limited field validation.)
Today, most companies have their eyes on two specific methane inhibitors: 3-nitroxypropanol (3-NOP; commercially available under the trade name Bovaer) and an active ingredient from red seaweed called bromoform.
3-NOP works — but not everywhere, and not always
Among the various methane-reducing feed additives, 3-NOP stands out as the most widely approved and commercially advanced option. Developed by DSM-Firmenich and marketed in the U.S. by Elanco, it has received regulatory approval in over 65 countries. This far surpasses other methane inhibitors, many of which are still in early research phases or approved only in limited markets.
- Mechanism: Inhibits methane production in a cow’s stomach when fed (¼ tablespoon to 1 tablespoon per cow daily).
- Impact: Cuts methane emissions by approximately 30% in dairy cattle and up to 45% in beef cattle.
- Adoption: Approved for use in 65+ countries, including the U.S., EU, Australia, Brazil, Canada and the U.K.
- Cost: About $100-150 per cow per year. (This translates to roughly 2-4 cents more per gallon of milk in the U.S.)
While methane inhibitors like 3-NOP show strong potential for reducing emissions, widespread adoption hinges on more than just regulatory approval — it requires clear economic incentives for farmers. These additives come with upfront costs and require changes to feeding practices, so financial support mechanisms are essential to make adoption viable at scale. While various mechanisms for widescale adoption are emerging, there is still no clarity on what would work best in different contexts.
For example, in the U.S., a growing number of farms are adopting 3-NOP through emerging carbon credit programs. Farmers track and report their emissions data using digital tools, which feed into third-party platforms that verify reductions and generate carbon credits. These credits are then purchased by food companies looking to meet their own climate targets — a model known as “insetting,” where companies invest in emissions reductions within their own supply chains.
In Brazil, limited commercial trials are underway to explore the use of methane-reducing feed additives like 3-NOP, with early efforts looking to carbon credits and emerging green finance frameworks as potential tools to support adoption. These frameworks aim to align agricultural practices with national climate goals and could, in theory, help channel investment into low-carbon technologies. Adoption is also growing in Europe and Canada, particularly in dairy systems that benefit from strong regulatory and incentive support.
In Southeast Asia and Africa, the focus is largely on improving feed efficiency rather than on methane inhibitors. However, 3-NOP is gaining regulatory traction and interest across these regions, too. It has been approved in Japan, South Korea, China and South Africa, and is drawing attention in other countries.
Despite its early success, 3-NOP faces challenges. Cost remains a barrier in regions without strong incentives. And its impact can diminish over time, particularly as cows progress through their lactation cycle or consume high-fiber diets such as crop residues (which is common in Africa and South Asia). Many companies also prefer to conduct their own trials before scaling up, and uncertainty around methane accounting standards continues to slow broader adoption.
Bromoform offers high potential but faces scrutiny
No single solution will be enough to reduce enteric methane emissions on its own. 3-NOP’s ongoing challenges highlight the need for complementary solutions.
One promising alternative is bromoform, a compound found in certain species of red seaweed, specifically those belonging to the Asparagopsis family. While seaweed itself is being explored as a feed additive and can offer some additional benefits, it’s not as effective as the synthetic version of bromoform and is expensive to produce. Seaweed is like drinking herbal tea for a headache; bromoform is like taking ibuprofen. The tea might help, but you need a lot of it. The pill works faster and with a much smaller amount. Even in very small doses, synthetic bromoform can reduce methane emissions by over 90%.
- Mechanism: Inhibits methane production in a cow’s stomach.
- Impact: Pure bromoform is observed to almost eliminate methane formation. Recent animal studies have shown more than 90% methane reduction.
- Adoption: Not yet approved for use, though several pilot trials are underway in Australia, the EU and the U.S.
- Cost: The cost of chemically synthesized bromoform is unknown; however, it is likely to be significantly lower than red seaweed, which currently appears to cost around $300-$500 per cow, per year.
While promising, bromoform comes with strong challenges, especially from a regulatory perspective. In high amounts, bromoform can pass into milk and meat, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as a probable human carcinogen. The good news is that the doses proposed for livestock feed are only about 1% of those used in safety studies, so the risk of bromoform entering the food supply is very low. The main concern is limiting its environmental release, as bromoform is a volatile compound that can pose a risk to the ozone layer and may contaminate drinking water if concentrations exceed safe limits. And for people who handle the chemical, as even small exposures could pose health risks.
Although bromoform will need more regulatory scrutiny, its methane reduction potential is very high. In the future, a combined approach — using 3-NOP alongside tiny amounts of bromoform — could offer a more powerful and scalable way to reduce methane emissions from livestock.
Governments Can Enable Innovation and Adoption
Regardless of the technology, reducing livestock methane at scale will require coordinated action across sectors, with governments, companies and public-private partnerships each playing a critical role.
On the part of governments, this will take:
1) Policies supporting innovation
Governments can play a pivotal role in scaling agricultural climate solutions by creating policies that both mandate and support innovation. For example, Denmark’s climate strategy requires all dairy farms with more than 50 cows to use methane-reducing feed additives. This includes options for 3-NOP or other innovative additives. The policy complements Denmark’s Green Tripartite Agreement, which introduced an agricultural emissions tax from 2030. Farmers who have enrolled in 2024-2025 and apply for a government subsidy will receive full cost reimbursements for additives in 2026.
2) Clarify and streamline regulatory approval pathways
Methane-reducing feed additives must be rigorously evaluated for safety to animals, humans and the environment. This is often a lengthy process, and the lack of standardized protocols across countries leads to duplicated efforts, higher compliance costs and trade inefficiencies. While all jurisdictions require strong evidence of efficacy and safety, the specifics of study design and documentation vary widely.
For example, methane inhibitors are categorized as “veterinary drugs” in the U.S., “zootechnical substances” in the EU, “gut modifiers” in Canada and “methane reducing agents” in South Korea — highlighting the complexity of achieving global alignment for approval and adoption.
This presents a unique opportunity to align regulatory frameworks globally — ideally in coordination with international climate goals like the Global Methane Pledge or the Paris Agreement. Early collaboration between scientists, companies and regulators is essential to streamline approvals and ensure that innovations can scale efficiently across markets
3) Integrate agricultural methane into nationally determined contributions (NDCs)
To meet global climate goals like those in the Global Methane Pledge, countries are being encouraged to include livestock methane in their national climate plans (“known as nationally determined contributions” or “NDCs”). By the end of 2023, only 22% of countries had methane-specific targets in their NDCs, and only about a third of those addressed agricultural methane.
The latest international guidance by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) outlines practical measures that can be taken at different levels to address the issue:
- At the animal level, this means making sure animals have enough good-quality feed, adjusting their diets to reduce methane, using methane-reducing additives like 3-NOP in feedlots, keeping animals healthy, and breeding animals that naturally produce less methane.
- At the herd level, it involves managing livestock more efficiently — like reducing the number of animals kept just for breeding, shortening the time it takes to raise animals for meat, and focusing on more productive animals.
- At the farm level, farmers can improve pastures, grow plants that help reduce methane and make better use of crop residues as animal feed.
Including these actions in their NDCs can help countries cut emissions quickly while also supporting farmers, improving food systems and protecting the environment.
Companies Must Move from Commitments to Implementation
Companies with beef and dairy in their portfolios have a direct role in advancing enteric methane solutions. Beyond goal setting and reporting, companies can support field-level implementation. This includes funding pilot programs with producers, helping scale additives or improved nutrition strategies, and co-investing in producer support services. In some cases, this may involve premium pricing or carbon-credit generation; in others, it may mean collaborating on technical assistance or infrastructure. For real progress, the focus should shift towards enabling measurable emissions reductions on farms.
1) Invest in the “unattractive” science
3-NOP’s growing success illustrates why the private sector must be willing to fund early-stage, high-risk research that may not appear commercially viable at first. It took years of mechanistic development, repeated trials and sustained investment before the additive became a breakthrough solution for enteric methane reduction. This kind of foundational science is essential for unlocking future markets and regulatory pathways.
We need more — and more cost-effective — solutions to cover all geographies and all production systems (e.g. confined feedlots, pastures, smallholder farms). Companies that invest early will have an opportunity to shape the innovation landscape and position themselves as leaders in methane mitigation.
2) Demonstrate what works in different contexts
To translate scientific breakthroughs into real-world impact, companies should co-invest in scalable, context-specific on-farm demonstrations. Rather than relying on generic farm trials, these efforts should showcase methane-inhibiting feed additives, such as 3-NOP, bromoform and other emerging technologies, under local conditions and within actual production systems.
Embedding these demonstrations in real-world supply chains (for example, through dairy processors or beef integrators) can ensure the practical application of these solutions in various contexts. Importantly, trials should not only measure emissions reductions but also highlight economic and productivity co-benefits, making the case for adoption across diverse stakeholders.
3) Collaborate early: Pre-competitive research and data sharing
While regulatory agencies still require product-specific data, shared research that involves early collaboration between scientists, companies, farmers, extension specialists and regulatory bodies can help in two ways. First, it can establish a general scientific consensus around the safety and effectiveness of certain types or chemical classes of additives. Second, pre-competitive research can be designed in consultation with regulatory bodies to align with approval requirements from the start. By using validated methods, standardized protocols and transparent reporting, collaborative studies can generate data that regulators are more likely to accept or reference. This reduces duplication, builds trust and could define clearer pathways for approval.
Initiatives such as Enteric Fermentation R&D Accelerator are encouraging pre-competitive collaboration, and more companies should invest in this and similar R&D programs.
This will require some tough conversations about open data sharing. But the goal isn’t for everyone to do the same thing — it’s to build a common understanding of science, so each company can innovate from a stronger foundation during the competitive stage. Think of it like building a road together, then racing their own cars on it.
4) Incentivize adoption through price premiums and market signals
To scale methane-reducing solutions in livestock, we need more than innovation — we need demand. The biggest challenge is getting farmers on board. A company can’t mandate change; instead, it has to understand farmers’ contexts and work within them. Ultimately, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution.
One promising approach comes from Fonterra, which offers price premiums to farmers who reduce emissions. What makes this model effective is its flexibility: Farmers can choose the intervention that works best for their operation, whether it’s a feed additive, improved grazing or another practice. This kind of incentive aligns environmental goals with business realities and sends a clear signal that low-emissions products are valued.
At the same time, food and retail companies can play a big role in creating demand for low-emissions livestock products. One way to do this is by changing how they buy their products to reward suppliers who can prove they’re reducing methane. This could mean offering better prices, long-term contracts or other benefits to farmers who use climate-friendly practices. Companies can also help farmers get ready to participate in carbon markets by supporting programs that link feed additives or other practices to verified emissions reductions.
Finally, to reduce methane emissions from their supply chains, consumer-facing companies can shift the mix of what they source and serve toward lower-emissions products. This could include other meats (such as poultry) or plant-based or alternative proteins.
Public-Private Partnerships Can Help Scale Success
In agriculture, public-private partnerships have already demonstrated their ability to deliver tangible results. They combine the innovation and efficiency of the private sector with the public sector’s ability to create enabling environments and ensure broader social benefits. When applied to methane mitigation, these partnerships can help build the infrastructure needed to modernize livestock systems, reduce financial and technical barriers to adoption, and ensure that solutions are designed for — and tested in — the places where they’re most needed.
1) Strengthen R&D capacity building in developing nations
Developing countries are home to roughly half — likely more — of the world’s ruminant livestock. However, most R&D data is generated in wealthier countries, where access to laboratories, equipment and testing facilities is more readily available. If methane-reducing solutions are to be effective and applicable across diverse regions, it is essential to strengthen research capacity in developing nations. This includes investing in local infrastructure, training programs, and collaborative partnerships that enable scientists and producers to create and test solutions suited to their specific environments.
2) Develop advance market commitments
Advance market commitments (AMCs) are legally binding agreements in which funders — typically governments or philanthropic organizations — commit to purchasing a specified quantity of a product or service once it meets agreed-upon performance criteria. This mechanism creates a guaranteed market, reducing financial risk and encouraging private sector investment in innovations that serve the public good.
AMCs have already proven successful in areas like the global health sector. For example, a $1.5 billion commitment to purchase pneumonia vaccines for low-income countries helped spur the vaccines’ development and distribution to more than 150 million children.
In the livestock sector, AMCs could help accelerate the development and adoption of methane-reducing technologies. This is especially true in the beef industry, where progress is slower than in the dairy sector. In theory, an AMC could offer a per-unit subsidy for any product that achieves a defined emissions reduction target, such as cutting methane per unit of milk or beef by 20%.
Unlike grants or upfront investments, AMCs only pay for success: firms are compensated only if their product meets the criteria and is actually adopted by farmers. If a product works in theory but fails to gain traction due to cost, usability or side effects, it receives no payout. This “no adoption, no reward” principle may be a good upcoming mechanism to make sure public funds support real-world impact.
Coordinated Action for Scalable Impact
The science is clear, the tools are emerging, and the urgency is real. Reducing enteric methane emissions from livestock is no longer a distant ambition — it’s a near-term opportunity to address climate change, strengthen food systems and unlock economic value.
But turning this opportunity into impact requires targeted action. Governments must create policies that enable innovation and adoption. The private sector needs to invest in and collaborate with farmers and researchers on context-specific farm trials that reflect the diversity of production systems.
Equally important is building R&D capacity in developing countries, where livestock systems are an indispensable source of income and the potential for methane mitigation is high. Supporting local innovation ecosystems is necessary for the equitable adoption of these methane mitigation solutions.
This is a global challenge that demands coordinated, cross-sector action. The window for impact is open — now is the time to act.
The author would like to thank Ermias Kebreab (UC Davis) and Charles Brooke (Spark Climate Solutions) for their valuable insights into this article.