Evidence Hub

Use of feed additives to reduce enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle: meta-analysis of data retrieved through a systematic review

Thomas Dalmonte, Niccolò Barbieri, Serena Giacomozzi, A. Palmonari, Valentina Indio, Y. Vecchio, Gulnara Guluzade, I. Abdullayev et al.

Frontiers in Animal Science, 2026

6 citations

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative data extracted from selected peer-reviewed papers describing

in vivo

studies on enteric methane emissions from dairy cattle treated with feed additives, compared with a control group. The aim was to identify feed additives that significantly reduce enteric methane emissions, expressed as g/day, g/kg dry matter intake, g/kg milk produced, and g/kg energy-corrected milk. The feed additives considered were polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), essential oils (EO), and monensin. Four electronic databases (PubMed, CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, and Scopus; 2001–2024) were used to retrieve papers, following the PRISMA 2020 statement.

Effect sizes were calculated as log response ratio percentages and analyzed using three-level random-effects models. Heterogeneity, cluster-robust variance estimation, and leave-one-out diagnostics were applied. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria.

Of these, 19 investigated the impact of PUFAs, yielding 45 data points; seven investigated the impact of 3-NOP, yielding 23 data points; eight investigated the impact of essential oils on enteric methane emissions, yielding 12 data points; and three investigated the impact of monensin, yielding four data points. PUFAs significantly reduced enteric methane emissions across all metrics, although high heterogeneity remained (I² ≈ 86%–95%). 3-NOP exhibited the most substantial average reductions in enteric methane emissions;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free