Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37627377›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Dietary Ruminant Enteric Methane Mitigation Strategies: Current Findings, Potential Risks and Applicability.

Tomas Lileikis, Rasa Nainienė, Saulius Bliznikas, Virginijus Uchockis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Applications and Action Mechanisms ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Chemical Characterization and Rumen-Modulating Effects ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation ofVeterinary world · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Interconnection between pastures, grazing ecosystem, animal welfare, meat quality, and human health.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025
    Article
  11. Veterinary world · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tomas LileikisDepartment of Animal Nutrition and Feedstuffs, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania.ORCID 0009-0001-7564-3866
Rasa NainienėDepartment of Animal Breeding and Reproduction, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-1596-5249
Saulius BliznikasAnalytical Laboratory, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0003-4923-6754
Virginijus UchockisDepartment of Animal Nutrition and Feedstuffs, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Žebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review examines the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of different dietary ruminant enteric methane mitigation strategies and their modes of action together with the issues discussed regarding the potential harms/risks and applicability of such strategies. By investigating these strategies, we can enhance our understanding of the mechanisms by which they influence methane production and identify promising approaches for sustainable mitigation of methane emissions. Out of all nutritional strategies, the use of 3-nitrooxypropanol, red seaweed, tannins, saponins, essential oils, nitrates, and sulfates demonstrates the potential to reduce emissions and receives a lot of attention from the scientific community. The use of certain additives as pure compounds is challenging under certain conditions, such as pasture-based systems, so the potential use of forages with sufficient amounts of plant secondary metabolites is also explored. Additionally, improved forage quality (maturity and nutrient composition) might help to further reduce emissions. Red seaweed, although proven to be very effective in reducing emissions, raises some questions regarding the volatility of the main active compound, bromoform, and challenges regarding the cultivation of the seaweed. Other relatively new methods of mitigation, such as the use of cyanogenic glycosides, are also discussed in this article. Together with nitrates, cyanogenic glycosides pose serious risks to animal health, but research has proven their efficacy and safety when control measures are taken. Furthermore, the risks of nitrate use can be minimized by using probiotics. Some of the discussed strategies, namely monensin or halogenated hydrocarbons (as pure compounds), demonstrate efficacy but are unlikely to be implemented widely because of legal restrictions.

Indexed as

emissionfeed and foragesmethanemitigationruminant

Identifiers

PMID37627377
PMCPMC10451764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.