MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939466555 · doi:10.60692/t23yt-d2v37

Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options

2022· article· en· W6939466555 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasProduction (economics)LivestockGrazingForageClimate change mitigationRuminantEnteric bacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ruminant livestock are an important source of anthropogenic methane (CH4). Decreasing the emissions of enteric CH4 from ruminant production is strategic to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C by 2050. Research in the area of enteric CH4 mitigation has grown exponentially in the last 2 decades, with various strategies for enteric CH4 abatement being investigated: production intensification, dietary manipulation (including supplementation and processing of concentrates and lipids, and management of forage and pastures), rumen manipulation (supplementation of ionophores, 3-nitrooxypropanol, macroalgae, alternative electron acceptors, and phytochemicals), and selection of low-CH4-producing animals. Other enteric CH4 mitigation strategies are at earlier stages of research but rapidly developing. Herein, we discuss and analyze the current status of available enteric CH4 mitigation strategies with an emphasis on opportunities and barriers to their implementation in confined and partial grazing production systems, and in extensive and fully grazing production systems. For each enteric CH4 mitigation strategy, we discuss its effectiveness to decrease total CH4 emissions and emissions on a per animal product basis, safety issues, impacts on the emissions of other greenhouse gases, as well as other economic, regulatory, and societal aspects that are key to implementation. Most research has been conducted with confined animals, and considerably more research is needed to develop, adapt, and evaluate antimethanogenic strategies for grazing systems. In general, few options are currently available for extensive production systems without feed supplementation. Continuous research and development are needed to develop enteric CH4 mitigation strategies that are locally applicable. Information is needed to calculate carbon footprints of interventions on a regional basis to evaluate the impact of mitigation strategies on net greenhouse gas emissions. Economically affordable enteric CH4 mitigation solutions are urgently needed. Successful implementation of safe and effective antimethanogenic strategies will also require delivery mechanisms and adequate technical support for producers, as well as consumer involvement and acceptance. The most appropriate metrics should be used in quantifying the overall climate outcomes associated with mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions. A holistic approach is required, and buy-in is needed at all levels of the supply chain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→