A Brief Review of Climate-Smart Technologies in the Beef Sector: Potentials and Development Status

Abstract

Livestock-focused climate-smart (CS) technologies aim to reduce emissions, increase productivity, and improve resilience to climate change. This study reviews CS practices and technologies for cattle production and discusses economic feasibility by exploring the likelihood of consumers’ acceptance of CS beef products and producers adopting these novel technologies on their farms. We identify four key CS technologies and practices cattle farms can adopt: CS farm management (grazing and manure management), methane-reducing feed additives, selective breeding, and genetic engineering. While all these technologies have the potential to reduce methane emissions, practices such as grazing management and using on-farm bio-digesters that do not seemingly alter the animal products are more likely to be accepted by consumers and producers than technologies such as genetic engineering. Although consumers’ willingness to pay for CS beef would be the biggest driver of the on-farm adoption of CS technologies, employing several other market and non-market approaches, such as carbon credits, labeling, tax rebates, subsidies, etc., could help more producers adopt CS technologies. Future studies should focus on understanding the determinants of CS technology adoption and consumer acceptance of CS meat/milk products.

1. Introduction

The livestock sector is one of the most significant contributors to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly methane [1]. Beef production in the United States significantly contributes to emissions, accounting for more than 40% of the agricultural sector emissions [2,3] (see Figure 1). Reducing emissions from the livestock sector is argued to be crucial in meeting the 1.5 °C temperature reduction target by 2030 [4]. Studies have posited that reducing 11–30% of emissions from livestock would help meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 [4].

The chemical properties of methane make it one of the most potent GHGs, as it traps more heat than carbon dioxide. Of the total methane emissions from the U.S. livestock sector, 75% come from enteric fermentation (178.6 MMT CO₂ eq), the digestive process in ruminants, where the methanogenic bacteria produce methane gas, and the remaining 25% (62.4 MMT CO₂ eq) is related to manure management [2]. Globally, manure management contributes 0.5 Gt CO₂ eq while enteric fermentation emits 2.9 Gt CO₂ eq [1]. The methane produced during enteric fermentation is released into the atmosphere through burping. Besides factors like breed types, health conditions, and lactation, feed quality affects methane emissions via enteric fermentation. For instance, cattle fed with low-quality diets with a higher share of roughages produce more methane than cattle fed with high-quality diets, like concentrates [5].

Additionally, the anaerobic activity that occurs after the excretion also produces methane. Manure management methods such as composting, solid storage, lagoon storage, etc., affect methane emitted from cattle manure. For instance, while composting and dry manure management emit less methane, the lagoon system of manure management releases more methane due to the high anaerobic activity.

Livestock is also one of the most vulnerable sectors to the adverse impacts of climate change. Extreme climate events like high and low temperatures, extended periods of drought, flooding, landslides, etc., are becoming more common, and they have significantly impacted the livestock sector. Heat stress alone has a very high cost in the livestock industry [6,7]. Less productive and less resilient cattle not only produce more methane per unit of meat/milk but also negatively affect the food and nutritional security of regions with a large share of less productive cattle [8].

Several climate-smart (CS) agricultural practices have been introduced to minimize GHG emissions from the agriculture sector, increase productivity, and strengthen resilience to the impacts of climate change [9]. Similar to the CS technologies and practices for the crop sector, there are several practices that can be used to reduce emissions from livestock farms. These technologies and practices aim to reduce emissions directly from enteric fermentation and manure management and indirectly by increasing animal productivity and improving resilience to the growing impacts of climate change.

This article reviews the potential livestock-focused CS technologies and adds to the CS livestock production literature. Specifically, we review the potential CS technologies and examine the economics of consumers’ acceptance and producers’ adoption of these technologies.

Although CS practices in the crop sector, such as mulching, zero tillage, cover cropping, and optimal fertilizer and irrigation management, are widely discussed and practiced [10,11], CS technologies for livestock have received little attention. Given the size of the livestock sector’s share in agriculture-related emissions, the adoption and promotion of CS practices in the livestock sector are crucial [3]. The primary reason for this less attention is that many of these CS technologies aimed at mitigating emissions from livestock production are in their developmental phase.

Although CS practices are emerging topics in meat and livestock economics, there is a lack of research exploring the potential CS technologies and their economic feasibility for farmers’ and consumers’ willingness to pay for meat produced using these technologies. While few studies [4,12,13,14,15] have reviewed technologies to reduce enteric fermentation and grazing management practices, they often lack an assessment of other potential CS technologies. Furthermore, these studies do not examine the economics of adopting these technologies at the farm level or consumers’ acceptance of the CS products. Consumer willingness to pay and other market-based approaches could be useful in promoting CS technologies. Similarly, non-market approaches like tax rebates, subsidies, compliance and regulations, and extension education could influence producers’ decision to adopt these technologies.

Following the conceptual framework in Figure 2, this article reviews the potential CS technologies for cattle production, focusing on mitigating emissions associated with enteric fermentation and manure and grazing management. Further, it critically examines how the on-farm adoption of CS technologies could be improved, especially by increasing the consumer acceptability of CS products (meat and milk). The article further discusses both market and non-market approaches that could enhance the adoption of CS technologies on farms by reducing the high costs. By doing so, this study contributes to the growing literature on CS livestock production and highlights key areas for future research.

2. Climate-Smart Technologies and Practices for Cattle Production

a. 

Climate-smart farm management

Unlike other CS technologies or practices, CS farm management practices/technologies do not directly alter an animal’s genetics or physiology. Instead, they focus on approaches such as using clean energy sources, grazing, and manure management practices that are environmentally friendly. For instance, installing clean energy generators like solar panels and wind turbines on ranches can help offset emissions from cattle production [16,17]. While manure management practices like solid storage, composting, daily spread, etc., can minimize emissions associated with manure to a certain extent, biodigester plants that trap methane emitted from anaerobic activities in cattle manure can significantly reduce methane emissions [18,19]. Furthermore, methane captured from biodigesters can be used to generate electricity, providing combined heat and power (CHP). Biodigesters are more suitable for dairy cattle and beef feedlots than on ranches, as collecting and managing manure are less expensive for dairy farms and beef feedlots. Capturing methane from manure can reduce almost a quarter of emissions associated with livestock, while the by-product (slurry) serves as high-quality organic fertilizer [20].

Grazing management practices, such as rotational grazing, can also mitigate livestock-related emissions [15,21]. Studies indicate that consistent moderate grazing helps sequester more carbon in pasture land [22] than under intensive grazing conditions. These practices can be adopted to limit the emissions associated with livestock. Overall, installing biodigesters and adopting other CS farm management practices can reduce approximately 25% of the total emissions from cattle production, assuming that the biodigester plant traps most of the methane that would have been emitted without the biodigester.

b. 

Methane-reducing feed additives

Feed additives, commonly known as methane-reducing feed additives [MRAs], help lower methane emissions from enteric fermentation by reducing gut bacterial activity in the rumen [23]. The effectiveness of these MRAs depends on the type of additives, feed ratio, animal breeds, and feed composition. Some seaweed and microalgae-based additives decrease the emissions associated with enteric fermentation by as much as 99% [13,24,25]. These plant-based MRAs contain bromoform, a compound that inhibits methanogenic activity in cattle gut and, therefore, lowers methane emissions [26]. Alternatively, chemical MRAs, such as 3-nitroxypropanol, nitrates, halogenated compounds, and ionophores, can mitigate emissions associated with enteric fermentation by suppressing gut microbial activities [13,27]. While plant-based feed additives, like seaweeds, do not negatively impact cattle productivity [28], higher doses of 3-nitroxypropanol and other chemical compounds may reduce the digestibility of protein and fibers [29].

In addition to feed additives, maintaining the right proportion of forage and concentrates can hasten digestion, thereby reducing emissions [23]. When forage takes a long time to digest, it undergoes a more methane-intensive process, ultimately increasing methane emissions.

c. 

Selective breeding

Selective breeding involves breeding animals with desirable traits, primarily to enhance productivity and product quality [12]. By increasing productivity [30], this technique indirectly reduces methane emissions by reducing emissions per unit of meat/milk production. For example, if a selectively bred animal can produce twice as much meat or milk as conventional breeds while consuming only 50% more feed, the carbon footprint per unit of production is significantly reduced. In beef cattle, selective breeding can potentially decrease the carbon footprint by up to 40% [31]. Besides productivity gains, selective breeding can be used effectively to increase resilience to climate change impacts by enhancing disease resistance and increasing an animal’s ability to withstand extreme weather events such as extreme cold and heat [31,32,33]. While the effectiveness of this technique would be limited in the United States and other advanced countries, where cattle productivity is already at its frontiers, it could be highly effective in African and Asian countries with low cattle productivity [34,35].

d. 

Genetic engineering

Genetic engineering tools, particularly CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) technology, are being explored for their potential to reduce GHG emissions. CRISPR is carried out by removing (or replacing) the methane-producing genes of the gut microbes. One area of research focuses on using CRISPR to modify gut microbes’ genetic makeup, thereby reducing emissions associated with enteric fermentation [36]. By modifying the genes of methanogens responsible for producing excessive methane, CRISPR technology can reduce emissions by up to 75%, depending on the farming system [37].

Besides emissions reduction, genetic engineering tools can also be used to increase animals’ tolerance toward unfavorable weather events, such as extreme heat and cold, while simultaneously increasing productivity [12]. Enhancing climate change resilience helps reduce methane emissions per unit of meat or milk produced.

However, the effectiveness of this technology remains uncertain. Also, consumers’ perceptions, along with ethical and safety concerns surrounding genetic engineering tools, pose significant challenges to the widespread adoption of this technology [37].

3. Status of Climate-Smart Technologies

The urgency of reducing emissions from the food system cannot be overstated, especially as countries worldwide have set ambitious GHG emissions reduction targets. For example, while the U.S. aims to reduce emissions by 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 [38], China, the largest emitter, has pledged to peak its emissions before 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2060 [39]. Likewise, Europe has pledged to reduce emissions by 90% from 1990 levels by 2040 [40]. In response to this urgency, climate scientists advocate dietary shifts towards more plant-based products and reducing the carbon footprint of animal-based food systems. While transitioning to a plant-based diet will be very effective in reducing emissions [41,42], the lack of widespread adoption of plant-based meat alternatives suggests a limited potential to cut emissions drastically [43]. Furthermore, the global demand for animal protein (meat and milk) is increasing steadily. In this circumstance, the widespread adoption of CS technologies and practices can significantly reduce the carbon footprint in meat production, especially beef. Major beef processors in Europe and the United States have already committed to curbing emissions associated with beef production and its supply chain.

While the widespread adoption of CS practices by beef-packing companies is still pending, some initiatives are underway in this direction. Notably, Tyson, one of the largest U.S. beef processors, has proactively introduced “climate-friendly” meat products like Brazen beef. Some packers have installed biodigesters in select feedlots as part of CS initiatives for the beef supply chain. However, the primary focus of CS initiatives among the top four beef packers has been on grazing management, integrating renewable energy sources into packing operations, and sourcing feed produced using sustainable practices. Several European countries are considering similar approaches. Additionally, China is considering methane emissions from the livestock sector, primarily through improving production efficiency [35].

The adoption patterns of CS technologies among developing and developed countries vary. The developing countries are the primary adopters of biodigester technology, with China and India leading the number of household and industrial biodigesters [44]. In Asia and Africa, low-cost and small-scale livestock-based biogas plants have not only reduced emissions but also provided households with clean cooking fuel [45,46]. In contrast, the United States had slightly less than 350 manure-based bio-digesters in 2023 despite a potential of 8000 such systems [19]. Likewise, studies show the potential of biogas in European countries [47,48]. Bumharter et al. (2023) [48] indicate that Europe’s current biogas output is less than 3% of its full potential. Furthermore, in several African countries, the focus is on low-cost technologies such as grazing and manure management [49,50], with some instances of selective breeding to increase productivity [51]. While these low-cost technologies are also being considered by some industries in the United States and Europe [52], their on-farm adoption is limited.

Brazil, the major livestock-producing country in South America, is planning to implement rotational grazing as a strategy to offset the GHG emissions resulting from deforestation [21]. Similarly, many African and Asian countries are restoring range land and agroforestry in tropical regions, resulting in promising emission reduction through carbon sequestration [15].

Another CS technology, selective breeding, can be useful in increasing cattle productivity and enhancing resilience to the impacts of climate change. There is a notable gap in cattle productivity between developed and developing countries. While productivity levels are high in the United States and Europe, there is significant potential for improvement in several Asian and African countries. The increased adoption of selective breeding in developing regions can lower emissions, enhance livestock productivity, and improve global food and nutritional security [51]. Breed improvement through selective breeding has been found to lower the cost of selective breeding in the long run [53] and is considered in several countries [35,54,55]. Other potential technologies, such as MRAs, remain largely untapped in the United States, although several other beef-producing countries like Brazil and Australia have moved forward with the adoption [56]. Other advanced technologies, such as the application of advanced genetic engineering tools, such as CRISPR, remain unexplored [36].

There are several CS technologies with varying potential to reduce emissions. Although studies suggest that adopting these technologies could significantly reduce methane emissions, financial incentives - whether market or non-market- are necessary to encourage producers to adopt them.

4. Consumer Demand for Climate-Smart Beef

Information about the consumers’ preference for CS meat products can be a key factor that determines the adoption of CS technologies by livestock producers [56]. Consequently, numerous studies have examined consumer demand for sustainably produced meats. As sustainability labels are not yet common in meat markets, most studies use hypothetical choice experiments to assess the demand for sustainably produced meat products. The findings of these studies indicate that consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable attributes of meat products varies.

Several studies show consumers’ acceptance of climate-friendly practices in beef production. A U.S.-based study [57] reports that 25% of respondents are willing to pay more for beef produced with grazing management, with an average annual willingness to pay USD 64 per consumer. Similarly, it is reported that consumers are willing to pay approximately 15% more for beef with environmentally friendly attributes, which could help offset on-farm cost increases from sustainable water use [58]. More recently, Ishaq et al. (2024) [59] also found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for climate-friendly beef. Additionally, Davidson et al. (2025) [60] report that U.S. consumers informed about methane emissions from beef sectors are willing to pay a premium for beef produced using feed additives. Compared to European consumers, U.S. consumers tend to show a more positive preference for new beef products, including beef produced by genetically modified crops and other feed alternatives [61,62]. While Western consumers often prefer products from indigenous breeds [63], the high productivity of exotic breeds could be appealing to farmers in developing countries [54,55]. Studies on other major markets, like China, have also shown a growing positive attitude toward climate-friendly meat production [64,65]. However, Chinese consumers still prioritize food safety issues over climate-friendliness [66]. Demand studies in Europe indicate a strong preference for low-carbon beef [67]. Conversely, some recent U.S.-based studies suggest that sustainability factors may not significantly influence consumers’ meat choices. For example, Kilders and Caputo (2024) [68] report a small market share for climate-friendly beef. Katare et al. (2023) [69] also report similar findings. Additionally, Van Loo et al. (2014) [70] report that consumers value animal welfare over carbon-friendly attributes.

The literature also highlights demographic factors like age, gender, income, and education as key determinants of the preference for climate-friendly attributes. Research shows that younger males, high income, and highly educated individuals are more likely to prefer climate-friendly attributes [57,66].

While there is extensive research on consumer preferences for ’climate-friendly’ or ’sustainably produced’ or ’carbon-neutral’ beef, a few studies, with a few exceptions (for example, Davidson et al., 2025; Li et al., 2016) [57,60], use product labels that explicitly communicate how the products are climate-friendly or explain the technologies that make them climate-friendly. The way consumers are communicated with about CS attributes can play a crucial role, particularly in choice experiments, in understanding how consumers value CS meat products. Educating consumers about specific CS practices and technologies used in producing these products could enhance consumer confidence about their safety and increase their willingness to pay a premium for meat produced using such methods. For example, when consumers are educated about manure and grazing management, which do not directly affect meat quality, beef produced with such practices can be more appealing to consumers with concerns regarding the sustainability of conventional meat production systems [57]. Furthermore, the traceability of the CS beef ensures the adoption of sustainable practices on the farm and throughout the supply chain, boosting consumer confidence and, in turn, leading to higher profits [71,72].

5. Challenges to On-Farm Adoption of Climate-Smart Technologies

The adoption of CS technologies in agriculture has been low [73,74], and it can take a significant effort to convince farmers to adopt them [75]. As CS technologies continue to evolve, adopting these technologies could face several challenges due to additional costs [13]. For example, installing a large-scale biodigester for manure management requires a high upfront investment [76], though they can be beneficial in the long run [77]. Similarly, technologies such as feed additives and selective breeding can raise production costs, as they require costly feed ingredients and high-quality semen, sometimes sourced internationally. Furthermore, the high costs of research and development of genetic engineering tools, such as CRISPR, could further hinder the adoption, particularly in developing countries. However, some studies contend that the long-run cost of using genetic tools can be less expensive than cattle improvement through breeding [78].

As the cost of the CS technology and consumers’ willingness to pay become better understood, it will help in estimating the potential on-farm adoption of the technology [79]. Moreover, as with consumers, farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics such as age, education, income, access to credit, etc. [52,79], along with farm characteristics such as farm and herd size, type of operation (dairy or beef farm), and existing technology, can significantly influence the adoption of CS technologies. Long et al. (2016) [79] argue that both the demand (the farmers and ranchers) and supply sides (the technology manufacturers) of CS technologies can create barriers to adopting the technology. They indicate that the traditional supply side (such as state support for the companies) could help but might not be enough to create demand for CS technologies. Thus, the focus should be on incentivizing the demand side, i.e., the farmers and ranchers.

Since there is uncertainty regarding the demand for CS meat and milk products, to address these challenges associated with adopting CS technologies [68,69], a multi-pronged approach needs to be implemented. For example, other market-based approaches (besides a price premium for the CS products from the consumer side), such as carbon credit, CS labeling/traceability, payment for ecological services, etc., could be employed. Additionally, other non-market-based approaches like tax rebates, subsidies, government-supported extension, and research could be adopted for CS technologies and practices [80] to encourage farmers to implement sustainable CS technologies and practices.

Given the nascent stage of some promising CS technologies in the livestock sector, increased investment in research and development is crucial. Despite existing constraints and confusion on the legal framework for carbon credit markets, the carbon-credit market mechanism can offset the costs of implementing such technologies at the farm. The upshot is that a comprehensive economic analysis accounting for all the above mechanisms is essential to determine the feasibility of the on-farm adoption of CS technologies.

6. Implications of Adoption of Climate-Smart Technologies

While CS technologies in livestock production can effectively reduce emissions, enhance resilience, and increase productivity, their on-farm adoption poses several health, environmental, and economic implications. Although adopting CS technologies for intensive livestock farming can reduce emissions, they can raise concerns about animal welfare due to the harsh conditions (like space for limited movement) associated with this type of farming [81,82]. However, using CS technologies and practices in extensive livestock systems could align productivity goals with animal welfare. Furthermore, while indigenous cattle breeds are more climate-resilient, they often have lower productivity [83]. Therefore, research efforts should focus on finding the optimal balance between resiliency and productivity in indigenous breeds, considering the trade-off between the two goals [81,82,83].

Despite the high cost of installation (more than a million U.S. dollars) of large-scale biodigesters [76], they are an efficient way to reduce methane emissions. However, the combustion of biogas produces carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide, which pose risks to human health and the environment [48]. Moreover, there are some safety concerns associated with biodigesters [44] that could lead to injuries and even fatalities. Thus, it is essential to assess the safety of the biodigester plant before and after construction to minimize the associated risks. Likewise, while feed additives are considered safe for animal productivity, careful consideration is needed when scaling up production [84]. For instance, with the widespread adoption of seaweed, MRAs could drastically increase the demand for seaweed production. The potential negative impacts of large-scale seaweed production should be factored into when evaluating the impacts of these CS technologies. Vijn et al. (2020) [85] highlighted some issues associated with large-scale seaweed production, including the presence of halogenated compounds and the concern about the entanglement of marine mammals in commercial seaweed production facilities. Furthermore, studies indicate that the bioactive agent in seaweed could have a prebiotic effect on humans [85]). Additionally, these technologies may have unintended effects on milk or meat productivity, potentially discouraging producers from adopting them [13]. For example, MRAs could disrupt the delicate microbial balance of the rumen, which could affect the digestion of the fibrous feed in livestock.

Feed additives could change the nutritional quality of meat and milk products with branched-chain fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids due to the change in rumen microbiota [27,86]. The change in quality can negatively affect the consumers’ preference for CS meat and milk products. Similarly, shifting animal diets towards more concentrated feed instead of roughages to minimize methane emissions could disproportionately affect low-income households worldwide by intensifying the competition for grains and oilseed between animal feed and human consumption.

Finally, CS technologies that involve genetic engineering (for example, CRISPR technology) could raise ethical and public health concerns [37,87,88]. However, educating consumers on the safety of genetic engineering technology—specifically clarifying that it only modifies gut microbes to reduce methane emissions without altering cattle genetics—could help alleviate these concerns.

7. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Given the economic impacts of climate change, there is a growing need to explore CS technologies and practices that can reduce livestock-related methane emissions, enhance the resilience of livestock systems, and boost productivity to ensure food and nutritional security. The development and promotion of CS technologies have become even more critical as the demand for plant-based protein alternatives, once viewed as a silver bullet to mitigate emissions from the livestock sector, has stagnated.

This article reviews technologies and practices that cattle producers can adopt to reduce livestock-related emissions, increase productivity, and enhance resilience to climate change. Among the four types of CS technology discussed, grazing and manure management appear to be the most promising tools. Selective breeding could have a limited impact in developed countries as the productivity is already too high. However, this tool could be useful in developing countries with low cattle productivity. While MRAs and genetic engineering tools such as CRISPR holds potential, further assessments are needed to ascertain the viability of these technologies.

A producer’s decision to adopt CS technologies will largely depend on the perceived benefits and costs of adopting such technologies. Future studies should focus on identifying the factors that could incentivize adoption and address barriers to the widespread use of these technologies.

Understanding whether consumers are willing to pay a premium for beef with CS attributes will be crucial in shaping the future of CS beef production in the United States and globally. Consumers’ premium for CS beef or milk can be a major market-based approach to promote CS technology among farmers. Consumers may show a stronger preference for one technology over the others, highlighting the need for further research on the consumers’ preference for each CS technology and practice. Studies should also explore whether educating consumers about CS technologies and their positive impacts could encourage them to choose CS meat and milk products.

When consumer premiums for CS technologies are insufficient to cover the cost of adopting them, other market-based approaches like carbon credits, sustainability labeling, and payment for ecological services could be useful. Likewise, non-market approaches like tax rebates, subsidies, and extension programs can help bridge the gap [89]. Some programs like “Carbon Credit” and “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” are already in place for CS technologies like biodigesters. However, these approaches require a clear legal and institutional framework to facilitate widespread adoption. Major economies should not only focus on reducing emissions domestically but also finance the development and adoption of these technologies in developing economies. Only through a collaborative partnership between developed and developing nations can emissions be effectively reduced, food and nutritional security be ensured, and resilience to climate change be increased globally.

Many of the emission reduction results of CS technologies are lab-based and still experimental. The claim about emission reduction and efficiency of these technologies will be credible only when they hold true in real-world field conditions. That way, the entities adopting these technologies will also be able to refute the ’green-wash’ tag they often face [90]. For example, some major U.S. beef processing companies with high emissions in their supply chains use CS technologies to offset their carbon emissions. However, these companies are often criticized for ’greenwashing’ their efforts [91]. This criticism primarily arises from overestimating the potential carbon sequestration and the effectiveness of CS technologies in reducing emissions. Effective and easy-to-use technologies that accurately quantify emission reduction at farms should be developed and made available (for example, rumen tag collars have been used by cattle producers to monitor grazing and rumen functions) [92,93]. Additionally, a dedicated and trustworthy institution with a transparent mechanism should be in place to validate the emission claims made by the companies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.K. and S.P.D.; methodology, B.K.; investigation, B.K.; resources, B.K. and S.P.D.; writing—original draft preparation, B.K. and S.P.D.; writing—review and editing, B.K. and S.P.D.; visualization, B.K. and S.P.D.; supervision, S.P.D.; project administration, B.K. and S.P.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were used in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the valuable inputs from anonymous reviewers and the editor in enhancing the quality of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures

Figure 1 Emissions from the U.S. Agricultural Sectors (MMT CO₂ eq) in 2019.

Figure 2 Conceptual framework of adoption of CS technologies.

References

1. FAO. Pathways Towards Lower Emissions—A Global Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Options from Livestock Agrifood Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en]

2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2019. USEPA. 2021; Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 (accessed on 5 February 2025).

3. Lamanna, M.; Buonaiuto, G.; Dalla Favera, F.; Romanzin, A.; Formigoni, A.; Cavallini, D. Precision livestock farming: Bridging the gap between media narratives and scientific realities in climate change impact. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming; Bologna, Italy, 9–12 September 2024.

4. Arndt, C.; Hristov, A.N.; Price, W.J.; McClelland, S.C.; Pelaez, A.M.; Cueva, S.F.; Oh, J.; Dijkstra, J.; Bannink, A.; Bayat, A.R. . Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2022; 119, e2111294119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111294119]

5. Patra, A.; Park, T.; Kim, M.; Yu, Z. Rumen methanogens and mitigation of methane emission by anti-methanogenic compounds and substances. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol.; 2017; 8, 13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0145-9]

6. Rojas-Downing, M.M.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Harrigan, T.; Woznicki, S.A. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag.; 2017; 16, pp. 145-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001]

7. Felini, R.; Cavallini, D.; Buonaiuto, G.; Bordin, T. Assessing the impact of thermoregulatory mineral supplementation on thermal comfort in lactating Holstein cows. Vet. Anim. Sci.; 2024; 24, 100363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2024.100363]

8. Thornton, P.K.; van de Steeg, J.; Notenbaert, A.; Herrero, M. The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agric. Syst.; 2009; 101, pp. 113-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002]

9. FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; Available online: https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/ (accessed on 5 February 2025).

10. Amadu, F.O.; McNamara, P.E.; Miller, D.C. Yield effects of climate-smart agriculture aid investment in southern Malawi. Food Policy; 2020; 92, 101869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101869]

11. Vatsa, P.; Ma, W.; Zheng, H.; Li, J. Climate-smart agricultural practices for promoting sustainable agrifood production: Yield impacts and implications for food security. Food Policy; 2023; 121, 102551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102551]

12. Knapp, J.R.; Laur, G.L.; Vadas, P.A.; Weiss, W.P.; Tricarico, J.M. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci.; 2014; 97, pp. 3231-3261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234]

13. Beauchemin, K.A.; Ungerfeld, E.M.; Abdalla, A.L.; Alvarez, C.; Arndt, C.; Becquet, P.; Benchaar, C.; Berndt, A.; Mauricio, R.M.; McAllister, T.A. . Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. J. Dairy Sci.; 2022; 105, pp. 9297-9326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22091]

14. Rijsberman, F. The key role of the meat industry in transformation to a low-carbon, climate-resilient, sustainable economy. Meat Sci.; 2017; 132, pp. 2-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.013]

15. Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2010; 107, pp. 19667-19672. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912890107]

16. Buckley Biggs, N.; Shivaram, R.; Acuña Lacarieri, E.; Varkey, K.; Hagan, D.; Young, H.; Lambin, E.F. Landowner decisions regarding utility-scale solar energy on working lands: A qualitative case study in California. Environ. Res. Commun.; 2022; 4, 055010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac6fbf]

17. Sutherland, L.A.; Holstead, K.L. Future-proofing the farm: On-farm wind turbine development in farm business decision-making. Land Use Policy; 2014; 36, pp. 102-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.07.004]

18. Erickson, E.D.; Tominac, P.A.; Zavala, V.M. Biogas production in United States dairy farms incentivized by electricity policy changes. Nat. Sustain.; 2023; 6, pp. 438-446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01038-9]

19. USEPA. Practices to Reduce Methane Emissions from Livestock Manure Management. 2024; Available online: https://www.epa.gov/agstar/practices-reduce-methane-emissions-livestock-manure-management (accessed on 5 February 2025).

20. de França, A.A.; von Tucher, S.; Schmidhalter, U. Effects of combined application of acidified biogas slurry and chemical fertilizer on crop production and N soil fertility. Eur. J. Agron.; 2021; 123, 126224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126224]

21. Bogaerts, M.; Cirhigiri, L.; Robinson, I.; Rodkin, M.; Hajjar, R.; Junior, C.C.; Newton, P. Climate change mitigation through intensified pasture management: Estimating greenhouse gas emissions on cattle farms in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 162, pp. 1539-1550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.130]

22. Chen, W.; Huang, D.; Liu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Badgery, W.B.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y. Improved grazing management may increase soil carbon sequestration in temperate steppe. Sci. Rep.; 2015; 5, 10892. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep10892]

23. Tseten, T.; Sanjorjo, R.A.; Kwon, M.; Kim, S.W. Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant animals. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2022; 32, 269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4014/jmb.2202.02019]

24. Roque, B.M.; Salwen, J.K.; Kinley, R.; Kebreab, E. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 234, pp. 132-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.193]

25. Roque, B.M.; Venegas, M.; Kinley, R.D.; de Nys, R.; Duarte, T.L.; Yang, X.; Kebreab, E. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0247820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247820]

26. Min, B.R.; Parker, D.; Brauer, D.; Waldrip, H.; Lockard, C.; Hales, K.; Akbay, A.; Augyte, S. The role of seaweed as a potential dietary supplementation for enteric methane mitigation in ruminants: Challenges and opportunities. Anim. Nutr.; 2021; 7, pp. 1371-1387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.10.003]

27. Honan, M.; Feng, X.; Tricarico, J.M.; Kebreab, E. Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: Modes of action, effectiveness and safety. Anim. Prod. Sci.; 2022; 62, pp. 1303-1317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN20295]

28. Glasson, C.R.; Kinley, R.D.; de Nys, R.; King, N.; Adams, S.L.; Packer, M.A.; Svenson, J.; Eason, C.T.; Magnusson, M. Benefits and risks of including the bromoform containing seaweed Asparagopsis in feed for the reduction of methane production from ruminants. Algal Res.; 2022; 64, 102673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102673]

29. Reynolds, C.K.; Humphries, D.J.; Kirton, P.; Kindermann, M.; Duval, S.; Steinberg, W. Effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emission, digestion, and energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.; 2014; 97, pp. 3777-3789. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7397]

30. Hume, D.A.; Whitelaw, C.B.A.; Archibald, A.L. The future of animal production: Improving productivity and sustainability. J. Agric. Sci.; 2011; 149, pp. 9-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610001188]

31. de Haas, Y.; Veerkamp, R.F.; De Jong, G.; Aldridge, M.N. Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle. Animal; 2021; 15, 100294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100294] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34246599]

32. Stear, M.J.; Bishop, S.C.; Mallard, B.A.; Raadsma, H. The sustainability, feasibility and desirability of breeding livestock for disease resistance. Res. Vet. Sci.; 2001; 71, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/rvsc.2001.0496]

33. Knap, P.W.; Doeschl-Wilson, A. Why breed disease-resilient livestock, and how?. Genet. Sel. Evol.; 2020; 52, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-020-00580-4]

34. Hyland, J.J.; Styles, D.; Jones, D.L.; Williams, A.P. Improving livestock production efficiencies presents a major opportunity to reduce sectoral greenhouse gas emissions. Agric. Syst.; 2016; 147, pp. 123-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.06.006]

35. Wang, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Dong, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Gu, B. Mitigation potential of methane emissions in China’s livestock sector can reach one-third by 2030 at low cost. Nat. Food; 2024; 5, pp. 603-614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01010-0]

36. Sicard, C. Can CRISPR Cut Methane Emissions from Cow Guts?. 2023; Available online: https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/can-crispr-cut-methane-emissions-cow-guts (accessed on 5 February 2025).

37. Khan, F.A.; Ali, A.; Wu, D.; Huang, C.; Zulfiqar, H.; Ali, M.; Ahmed, B.; Yousaf, M.R.; Putri, E.M.; Negara, W. . Editing microbes to mitigate enteric methane emissions in livestock. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2024; 40, 300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-024-04103-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39134917]

38. The White House. Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs Securing, U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies. 2021; Available online: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/ (accessed on 5 February 2025).

39. UNFCCC. China’s Achievements, New Goals, and New Measures for Nationally Determined Contributions. 2022; Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/China%E2%80%99s%20Achievements%2C%20New%20Goals%20and%20New%20Measures%20for%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contributions.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2025).

40. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document: Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment Report. 2024; Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/06182e00-03ac-4b6b-a58c-54cb45b080c2_en (accessed on 5 February 2025).

41. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science; 2018; 361, eaam5324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324]

42. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science; 2018; 360, pp. 987-992. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216]

43. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Why alternative proteins will not disrupt the meat industry. Meat Sci.; 2023; 203, 109223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109223] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37224592]

44. Ni, J.Q. A review of household and industrial anaerobic digestion in Asia: Biogas development and safety incidents. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2024; 197, 114371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114371]

45. Katuwal, H.; Bohara, A.K. Biogas: A promising renewable technology and its impact on rural households in Nepal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2009; 13, pp. 2668-2674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.002]

46. Chowdhury, T.; Chowdhury, H.; Hossain, N.; Ahmed, A.; Hossen, M.S.; Chowdhury, P.; Thirugnanasambandam, M.; Saidur, R. Latest advancements on livestock waste management and biogas production: Bangladesh’s perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 272, 122818. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122818]

47. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Fahl, F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew. Energy; 2018; 129, pp. 457-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.006]

48. Bumharter, C.; Bolonio, D.; Amez, I.; Martínez, M.J.G.; Ortega, M.F. New opportunities for the European biogas industry: A review on current installation development, production potentials, and yield improvements for manure and agricultural waste mixtures. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 388, 135867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135867]

49. Ayal, D.Y.; Mamo, B. Farmer’s climate-smart livestock production adoption and determinant factors in Hidebu Abote District, Central Ethiopia. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 10027. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59967-8]

50. García de Jalón, S.; Silvestri, S.; Barnes, A.P. The potential for adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in Sub-Saharan livestock systems. Reg. Environ. Change; 2017; 17, pp. 399-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1026-z]

51. Nardone, A.; Ronchi, B.; Lacetera, N.; Ranieri, M.S.; Bernabucci, U. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest. Sci.; 2010; 130, pp. 57-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011]

52. Pagliacci, F.; Defrancesco, E.; Mozzato, D.; Bortolini, L.; Pezzuolo, A.; Pirotti, F.; Pisani, E.; Gatto, P. Drivers of farmers’ adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from northeastern Italy. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 710, 136345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136345] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31927289]

53. Farquharson, R.J.; Griffith, G.R.; Barwick, S.; Banks, R.; Holmes, B. Estimating the Returns from Past Investment into Beef Cattle Genetic Technologies in Australia; Economic Research Report No. 15 NSW Agriculture: Armidale, Australia, 2003.

54. Mutenje, M.; Chipfupa, U.; Mupangwa, W.; Nyagumbo, I.; Manyawu, G.; Chakoma, I.; Gwiriri, L. Understanding breeding preferences among small-scale cattle producers: Implications for livestock improvement programmes. Animals; 2020; 14, pp. 1757-1767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000592]

55. Roessler, R. Selection decisions and trait preferences for local and imported cattle and sheep breeds in Peri-/Urban livestock production systems in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Animals; 2019; 9, 207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9050207]

56. Luke, J.R.; Tonsor, G.T. A Review of Producer Adoption in the US Beef Industry with Application to Enteric Methane Emission Mitigation Strategies. Animals; 2025; 15, 144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani15020144]

57. Li, X.; Jensen, K.L.; Clark, C.D.; Lambert, D.M. Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate-friendly production practices. Food Policy; 2016; 64, pp. 93-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.003]

58. White, R.R.; Brady, M. Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact-reducing technologies in meat animal production?. Food Policy; 2014; 49, pp. 41-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.007]

59. Ishaq, M.; Kolady, D.; Grebitus, C. The effect of information and beliefs on preferences for sustainably produced beef. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2024; 51, pp. 895-925. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbae014]

60. Davidson, K.A.; McFadden, B.R.; Meyer, S.; Bernard, J.C. Consumer Preferences for Low-Methane Beef: The Impact of Pre-Purchase Information, Point-of-Purchase Labels, and Increasing Prices. Food Policy; 2025; 130, 102768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102768]

61. Lusk, J.L.; Roosen, J.; Fox, J.A. Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2003; 85, pp. 16-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00100]

62. Altmann, B.A.; Anders, S.; Risius, A.; Mörlein, D. Information effects on consumer preferences for alternative animal feedstuffs. Food Policy; 2022; 106, 102192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102192]

63. Scarpa, R.; Ruto, E.S.; Kristjanson, P.; Radeny, M.; Drucker, A.G.; Rege, J.E. Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: An empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecol. Econ.; 2003; 45, pp. 409-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00094-6]

64. Lai, J.; Wang, H.H.; Ortega, D.L.; Widmar, N.J.O. Factoring Chinese consumers’ risk perceptions into their willingness to pay for pork safety, environmental stewardship, and animal welfare. Food Control; 2018; 85, pp. 423-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.09.032]

65. Chen, X.; Zhen, S.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Ren, Y. Consumers’ willingness to pay for carbon-labeled agricultural products and its effect on greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from beef products in urban China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.; 2024; 106, 107528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107528]

66. Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Lund, T.B.; Olsen, J.V.; Sandøe, P. Willingness-to-pay for reduced carbon footprint and other sustainability concerns relating to pork production—A comparison of consumers in China, Denmark, Germany, and the UK. Livest. Sci.; 2023; 276, 105337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2023.105337]

67. Cubero Dudinskaya, E.; Naspetti, S.; Arsenos, G.; Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Latvala, T.; Martin-Collado, D.; Orsini, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. European consumers’ willingness to pay for red meat labelling attributes. Animals; 2021; 11, 556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11020556] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33672549]

68. Kilders, V.; Caputo, V. A reference-price-informed experiment to assess consumer demand for beef with a reduced carbon footprint. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2024; 106, pp. 3-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12432]

69. Katare, B.; Yim, H.; Byrne, A.; Wang, H.H.; Wetzstein, M. Consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable meat and a plant-based meat substitute. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy; 2023; 45, pp. 145-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13285]

70. van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Verbeke, W. Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy; 2014; 49, pp. 137-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.002]

71. Gallo, A.; Accorsi, R.; Goh, A.; Hsiao, H.; Manzini, R. A traceability-support system to control safety and sustainability indicators in food distribution. Food Control; 2021; 124, 107866. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.107866]

72. Cao, S.; Johnson, H.; Tulloch, A. Exploring blockchain-based traceability for food supply chain sustainability: Towards a better way of sustainability communication with consumers. Procedia Comput. Sci.; 2023; 217, pp. 1437-1445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.342]

73. Issahaku, G.; Abdulai, A. Adoption of climate-smart practices and its impact on farm performance and risk exposure among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.; 2020; 64, pp. 396-420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12357]

74. Zulauf, C.; Brown, B. Cover crops, 2017 US census of agriculture. Farmdoc Daily; 2019; 9, 135.

75. Ranjan, P.; Church, S.P.; Floress, K.; Prokopy, L.S. Synthesizing conservation motivations and barriers: What have we learned from qualitative studies of farmers’ behaviors in the United States?. Soc. Nat. Resour.; 2019; 32, pp. 1171-1199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1648710]

76. USEPA. A Handbook for Developing Anaerobic Digestion/Biogas Systems on Farms in the United States, 3rd Edition. 2014; Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/agstar-handbook.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2025).

77. Beddoes, J.C.; Bracmort, K.S.; Burns, R.T.; Lazarus, W.F. An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on US Livestock Production Facilities; USDA Nat Resour Conserv Serv (NRCS): Greensboro, NC, USA, 2007.

78. Zhao, J.; Lai, L.; Ji, W.; Zhou, Q. Genome editing in large animals: Current status and future prospects. Natl. Sci. Rev.; 2019; 6, pp. 402-420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz013]

79. Long, T.B.; Blok, V.; Coninx, I. Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: Evidence from the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and Italy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 112, pp. 9-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.044]

80. Engel, S.; Muller, A. Payments for environmental services to promote “climate-smart agriculture”? Potential and challenges. Agric. Econ.; 2016; 47, pp. 173-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12307]

81. Molnár, M. Transforming intensive animal production: Challenges and opportunities for farm animal welfare in the European Union. Animals; 2022; 12, 2086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12162086]

82. Singh, R.; Maiti, S.; Garai, S. Sustainable intensification—Reaching towards climate-resilient livestock production system—A review. Ann. Anim. Sci.; 2023; 23, pp. 1037-1047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2023-0027]

83. Oloo, R.D.; Ojango, J.M.K.; Ekine-Dzivenu, C.C.; Gebreyohanes, G.; Mrode, R.; Mwai, O.A.; Chagunda, M.G.G. Enhancing individual animal resilience to environmental disturbances to address low productivity in dairy cattle performing in sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Anim. Sci.; 2023; 4, 1254877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1254877]

84. Vastolo, A.; Serrapica, F.; Cavallini, D.; Fusaro, I.; Atzori, A.S.; Todaro, M. Alternative and novel livestock feed: Reducing environmental impact. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2024; 11, 1441905. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1441905] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39100757]

85. Vijn, S.; Compart, D.P.; Dutta, N.; Foukis, A.; Hess, M.; Hristov, A.N.; Kalscheur, K.F.; Kebreab, E.; Nuzhdin, S.V.; Price, N.N. . Key considerations for the use of seaweed to reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2020; 7, 597430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.597430]

86. Beauchemin, K.A.; McGinn, S.M.; Benchaar, C.; Holtshausen, L. Crushed sunflower, flax, or canola seeds in lactating dairy cow diets: Effects on methane production, rumen fermentation, and milk production. J. Dairy Sci.; 2009; 92, pp. 2118-2127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1903]

87. Lin, W.; Ortega, D.L.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Personality traits and consumer acceptance of controversial food technology: A cross-country investigation of genetically modified animal products. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2019; 76, pp. 10-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.03.007]

88. Ortega, D.L.; Lin, W.; Ward, P.S. Consumer acceptance of gene-edited food products in China. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2022; 95, 104374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104374]

89. Cowley, C.A.; Brorsen, B.W.; Hamilton, D.W. Economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion with swine operations. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.; 2019; 51, pp. 49-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aae.2018.20]

90. Kateman, B. ‘Climate-friendly’ meat is a myth. Time Magazine; 2023; Available online: https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/ (accessed on 31 January 2025).

91. Boscardin, L. Greenwashing the animal-industrial complex: Sustainable intensification and the Livestock Revolution. Contested Sustainability Discourses in the Agrifood System; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 111-126.

92. Cavallini, D.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Biagi, G.; Fusaro, I.; Giammarco, M.; Formigoni, A.; Palmonari, A. Effects of 00-rapeseed meal inclusion in Parmigiano Reggiano hay-based ration on dairy cows’ production, reticular pH, and fibre digestibility. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2021; 20, pp. 295-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1884005]

93. Heinrichs, A.J.; Heinrichs, B.S.; Cavallini, D.; Fustini, M.; Formigoni, A. Limiting total mixed ration availability alters eating and rumination patterns of lactating dairy cows. JDS Commun.; 2021; 2, pp. 186-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2020-0074]