Opportunities for methane mitigation in agriculture

The report identifies a wide array of solutions to reduce agricultural methane, which accounts for approximately half of global anthropogenic methane emissions. Key strategies include improving livestock feed efficiency, using methane inhibitors like 3-NOP and Asparagopsis seaweed, implementing advanced manure treatments such as acidification and solid-liquid separation, and adopting water-management practices in rice cultivation like alternate wetting and drying. The authors emphasize that while many technologies are market-ready, widespread adoption is hindered by financial and regulatory barriers, necessitating stronger government support and private sector engagement.

• Agriculture is responsible for approximately 50% of global anthropogenic methane emissions, with livestock (enteric and manure) accounting for nearly 65% of those agricultural emissions.
• Improving feed efficiency in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by enhancing the digestibility of crop residues can significantly reduce enteric methane intensity. For example, adopting dual-purpose crops in India's mixed-crop livestock systems could increase output per animal by 87% and reduce methane emissions per kg of output by 31%.
• The synthetic methane inhibitor 3-Nitroxypropanol (3-NOP) is approved in over 60 countries and can reduce methane intensity in dairy cows by 16–41.6% and in beef cattle by 4–76%. Its estimated mitigation cost for lactating dairy cows is $144/tonne CO2e for a 30% reduction.
• Asparagopsis (red seaweed) shows high methane reduction potential, ranging from 26–67% in dairy cows and 38–98% in beef cattle, but faces challenges regarding bromoform safety and high production costs ($243–$625/tonne CO2e).
• Other enteric inhibitors include nitrates (10.9–30% reduction), lipids (3–17% reduction), and plant metabolites (9–38% reduction). Lipids using waste cooking oil are particularly cost-effective at $84/tonne CO2e for a 10% reduction.
• Genetic selection for low-methane traits could theoretically reduce emissions by 11–26% over 10 years, though it requires significant industry investment in phenotyping.
• Solid-liquid separation of manure can reduce methane emissions by 25–62% at a relatively low cost of $5–$24 per tonne of CO2e.
• Anaerobic digestion can reduce manure methane by 17–85%, but it is expensive ($190–$240/tonne CO2e for 50% reduction) and risks methane leakage.
• In rice cultivation, alternate wetting and drying (AWD) can reduce methane emissions by 20–72% while significantly saving water, though it may increase nitrous oxide emissions.
• Mid-season drainage in rice fields can reduce methane emissions by 38–80%, with a meta-analysis showing a 47% decrease in overall CO2e emissions compared to continuous flooding.
• Drip irrigation for rice, pioneered by Netafim, claims up to 90% methane reduction and has shown 70–80% reduction in literature, alongside yield improvements of 15.1–23.5%.
• Direct-seeded rice (DSR) can reduce methane emissions by 47–65% compared to conventional transplanted flooded rice.
• Breeding low-methane rice varieties, such as the SUSIBA 2 variety, can reduce methane emissions per hectare by 22–51%.
• Combining water drawdown and off-season rice straw application could potentially reduce global rice production methane emissions by more than 30%.

APA

Hegde, S., Searchinger, T. D., & Diaz, M. J. (2025). Opportunities for methane mitigation in agriculture. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-02/opportunities-methane-mitigation-agriculture.pdf?VersionId=WTCnIgnw7ktdUcbayS3Xl0pKHZ3s_BHF&_gl=1*mi8g8t*_gcl_au*ODc3NTI2ODY1LjE3NDg0NDY0NDY.

Chicago

Hegde, Swati, Timothy D. Searchinger, and Mario Julien Diaz. Opportunities for methane mitigation in agriculture. World Resources Institute, 2025. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-02/opportunities-methane-mitigation-agriculture.pdf?VersionId=WTCnIgnw7ktdUcbayS3Xl0pKHZ3s_BHF&_gl=1*mi8g8t*_gcl_au*ODc3NTI2ODY1LjE3NDg0NDY0NDY.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hegde |first1=Swati |last2=Searchinger |first2=Timothy D. |last3=Diaz |first3=Mario Julien |title=Opportunities for methane mitigation in agriculture |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=March 2025 |url=https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-02/opportunities-methane-mitigation-agriculture.pdf?VersionId=WTCnIgnw7ktdUcbayS3Xl0pKHZ3s_BHF&_gl=1*mi8g8t*_gcl_au*ODc3NTI2ODY1LjE3NDg0NDY0NDY. |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hegde2025opportunities, author = {Hegde, Swati and Searchinger, Timothy D. and Diaz, Mario Julien}, title = {{Opportunities for methane mitigation in agriculture}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2025}, month = mar, url = {https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-02/opportunities-methane-mitigation-agriculture.pdf?VersionId=WTCnIgnw7ktdUcbayS3Xl0pKHZ3s_BHF&_gl=1*mi8g8t*_gcl_au*ODc3NTI2ODY1LjE3NDg0NDY0NDY.}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }