我国农食系统温室气体排放现状及瘤胃甲烷调控路径

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2026.20.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Agrifood system is an important source of global greenhouse gas emissions and a key sector for green and low-carbon agricultural transformation. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in China are dominated by methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), with enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation and agricultural soils representing the major emission sources. Among them, methane emissions from ruminants are closely related not only to agricultural methane mitigation but also to feed energy loss and rumen metabolic partitioning, making them an important entry point for low-carbon transformation of animal production. This review summarized the emission patterns of global and Chinese agrifood systems, and put emphasis on monitoring methods, evaluation indicators, and methane emission characteristics of dairy cattle and mutton sheep in China, as well as dietary nutritional regulation and emerging mitigation technologies. Current evidence indicated that dry matter intake, dietary carbohydrate structure, production stage and output efficiency were key determinants of ruminant methane emission intensity. Optimizing the forage-to-concentrate ratio, improving feed efficiency and applying small-molecule compounds, nitrate, lipids, plant secondary metabolites and seaweed-derived additives showed mitigation potential, but their application required integrated assessment of methane reduction, animal performance, rumen health, safety and long-term stability. At present, ruminant methane mitigation in China was still constrained by insufficient local measurement data, limited refinement of emission factors, unclear scenario-specific applicability of mitigation technologies and an underdeveloped verification system for emission reductions. Future efforts should strengthen the development of localized methane emission databases, improve evaluation systems centered on product-based emission intensity, and promote the coordinated development of low-carbon diets, precision nutrition, rumen modulators and farm-level greenhouse gas accounting, thereby supporting agrifood system mitigation and high-quality livestock development in China.

Key words: agrifood system, greenhouse gas, enteric methane, ruminants, low-carbon feed

DIAO QiYu, LIU YunLong. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from China’s Agrifood System and Methane Mitigation Pathways in Ruminants[J].Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(20): 4603-4616.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig. 1

Table 1

Table 2

Major methods for measuring methane emissions from ruminants and their application scenarios"

监测方法 Monitoring method	测定尺度 Scale	主要优势 Major advantages	主要局限 Major limitation	适用场景 Application scene
呼吸代谢室法 Respiration chamber	个体 Individual	精度高，可连续测定 High accuracy and continuous measurement	成本高，通量低 High cost and low throughput	精准测定、机制研究 Reference measurement and mechanistic studies
SF₆示踪法 SF₆ tracer technique	个体 Individual	适用于自然饲养条件 Applicable under production conditions	操作复杂，变异较大 Complex operation and relatively high variability	放牧及生产场景 Grazing and production systems
GreenFeed系统 GreenFeed system	个体 Individual	自动化，可长期监测 Automated and suitable for long- term monitoring	依赖访问频次和时间分布 Dependent on visit frequency and timing	大群体监测、减排评价 Large-scale monitoring and mitigation assessment
CO₂示踪比值法 CO₂ tracer ratio method	个体 Individual	高通量、易于自动化 High throughput and easy automation	依赖CO₂产生量估算 Dependent on estimated CO₂ production	大群体筛查 Large-scale screening
Sniffer方法 Sniffer method	个体 Individual	简便、重复测定方便 Simple and suitable for repeated measurements	多为浓度测定，需校准 Mainly concentration-based and requires calibration	表型筛查、遗传评价 Phenotyping and genetic evaluation
激光及其他短时测定 Laser and other short-term methods	个体 Individual	便携、快速 Portable and rapid	受环境和采样时间影响 Affected by environment and sampling time	快速筛查、辅助测定 Rapid screening and supplementary measurement
微气象及环境监测 Micrometeorological and environmental monitoring	群体或场级 Group or farm	不干扰动物，可覆盖较大范围 Non-invasive and suitable for large areas	受气象条件和源分离影响 Affected by meteorology and source separation	牛群、牧场及场级核算 Herd, pasture and farm-scale accounting

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Dietary nutritional strategies for mitigating methane emissions from ruminants and their application assessment"

技术类型 Strategy	代表措施 Representative measure	主要机制 Main mechanism	应用评价 Application consideration
基础效率型 Efficiency-based strategies	优化日粮结构、提高粗饲料质量和饲料效率 Diet optimization, improved forage quality and feed efficiency	优化发酵底物，提高单位采食产品产出 Optimized fermentation substrates and greater output per unit intake	适用范围广，生产基础性强 Broad applicability and high production relevance
脂肪补充 Lipid supplementation	油脂、油籽、脂肪酸钙 Fats, oilseeds and calcium salts of fatty acids	减少可发酵底物，影响H₂利用和微生物活性 Reduced fermentable substrates and altered H₂ use and microbial activity	适度减排，过量可能抑制纤维消化 Moderate mitigation; excess may impair fiber digestion
替代氢受体 Alternative hydrogen sinks	硝酸盐等 Nitrate and related compounds	与产甲烷途径竞争H₂ Competition for H₂ with methanogenesis	机制明确，需控制亚硝酸盐风险 Mechanistically clear; nitrite risk requires control
靶向抑制剂 Targeted inhibitors	3-NOP	靶向 MCR，抑制甲烷生成 Targeting MCR to inhibit methanogenesis	减排效果较稳定，需考虑成本和核证 Relatively consistent efficacy; cost and verification remain important
植物次生代谢物 Plant secondary metabolites	单宁、皂苷、精油、多酚 Tannins, saponins, essential oils and polyphenols	调节产甲烷菌、原虫和发酵模式 Modulation of methanogens, protozoa and fermentation patterns	效果受来源、剂量和日粮背景影响 Effects depend on source, dose and dietary context
海藻类添加剂 Seaweed-derived additives	Asparagopsis spp.	卤代活性物质抑制甲烷生成 Halogenated compounds inhibit methanogenesis	减排潜力高，需关注安全性和供应 High mitigation potential; safety and supply require attention
微生态调控 Microbiome modulation	益生菌、直接饲喂微生物 Probiotics and direct-fed microbials	改善瘤胃稳态和饲料利用 Improved rumen homeostasis and feed utilization	效果相对间接，更适合评价排放强度 Generally indirect effects; better assessed by emission intensity

Table 5

References 52

[1]	Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello F N, Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions[J]. Nature Food, 2021, 2(3): 198-209. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 pmid: 37117443
[2]	Gil J. Mitigating agricultural methane emissions[J]. Nature Food, 2022, 3(6): 401. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00547-2 pmid: 37118048
[3]	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
[4]	Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems: Global, regional and country trends, 2001-2023: 115[R]. FAO, 2025.
[5]	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 中华人民共和国气候变化第一次双年透明度报告[R]. 北京: 中华人民共和国生态环境部, 2024.
	Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China First Biennial Transparency Report on Climate Change[R]. Beijing: Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, 2024. (in Chinese)
[6]	Ripple W J, Smith P, Haberl H, Montzka S A, McAlpine C, Boucher D H. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4(1): 2-5. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2081
[7]	Moss A R, Jouany J P, Newbold J. Methane production by ruminants: Its contribution to global warming[J]. Annales de Zootechnie, 2000, 49(3): 231-253. doi: 10.1051/animres:2000119
[8]	Gerber P J, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities[R]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013.
[9]	Johnson K A, Johnson D E. Methane emissions from cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 1995, 73(8): 2483-2492. doi: 10.2527/1995.7382483x pmid: 8567486
[10]	Clark M A, Domingo N G G, Colgan K, Thakrar S K, Tilman D, Lynch J, Azevedo I L, Hill J D. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2℃ climate change targets[J]. Science, 2020, 370(6517): 705-708.
[11]	贾鹏, 董利锋, 屠焰, 刁其玉. 间接法测定反刍动物甲烷排放量的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(9): 4839-4847. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2021.09.005
	Jia P, Dong L F, Tu Y, Diao Q Y. Advancements in indirect methods for measuring methane emission from ruminants[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(9): 4839-4847. (in Chinese)
[12]	Hammond K J, Crompton L A, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, Yáñez-Ruiz D R, O’Kiely P, Kebreab E, Eugène M A, Yu Z, Shingfield K J, Schwarm A, Hristov A N, Reynolds C K. Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016, 219: 13-30. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.018
[13]	Johnson K, Huyler M, Westberg H, Lamb B, Zimmerman P. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock using a sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 1994, 28(2): 359-362. doi: 10.1021/es00051a025
[14]	Hammond K J, Waghorn G C, Hegarty R S. The GreenFeed system for measurement of enteric methane emission from cattle[J]. Animal Production Science, 2016, 56(3): 181-189. doi: 10.1071/AN15631
[15]	Hristov A N, Oh J, Giallongo F, Frederick T, Harper M T, Weeks H, Branco A F, Price W J, Moate P J, Deighton M H, Williams S R O, Kindermann M, Duval S. Short communication: Comparison of the GreenFeed system with the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(7): 5461-5465. doi: S0022-0302(16)30212-0 pmid: 27132101
[16]	Zhao Y G, Nan X M, Yang L, Zheng S S, Jiang L S, Xiong B H. A review of enteric methane emission measurement techniques in ruminants[J]. Animals, 2020, 10(6): 1004. doi: 10.3390/ani10061004
[17]	Laubach J, Flesch T K, Ammann C, Bai M, Gao Z L, Merbold L, Campbell D I, Goodrich J P, Graham S L, Hunt J E, Wall A M, Schipper L A. Methane emissions from animal agriculture: Micrometeorological solutions for challenging measurement situations[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2024, 350: 109971. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.109971
[18]	Niu M T, Kebreab E, Hristov A N, Oh J, Arndt C, Bannink A, Bayat A R, Brito A F, Boland T, Casper D, Crompton L A, Dijkstra J, Eugène M A, Garnsworthy P C, Haque M N, Hellwing A L F, Huhtanen P, Kreuzer M, Kuhla B, Lund P, et al. Prediction of enteric methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle using an intercontinental database[J]. Global Change Biology, 2018, 24(8): 3368-3389. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14094 pmid: 29450980
[19]	丁静美, 成述儒, 邓凯东, 张明娇, 刁其玉, 屠焰. 不同中性洗涤纤维与非纤维性碳水化合物比值饲粮对肉用绵羊甲烷排放的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2017, 29(3): 806-813.
	Ding J M, Cheng S R, Deng K D, Zhang M J, Diao Q Y, Tu Y. Effects of different neutral detergent fiber/nonfiberous carbohydrate diets on methane emission of meat sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2017, 29(3): 806-813. (in Chinese)
[20]	周艳, 刁其玉, 董利锋, 邓凯东, 许贵善, 马涛. 饲粮非纤维性碳水化合物(NFC)与中性洗涤纤维(NDF)比例对育成期杜寒杂交母羊生长性能、营养物质消化率和甲烷产量的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2018, 49(7): 1405-1415.
	Zhou Y, Diao Q Y, Dong L F, Deng K D, Xu G S, Ma T. The effect of different ratios of dietary non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) to neutral detergent fiber (NDF) on production performance, nutrient digestibility and methane emissions of dorper × thin-tailed Han crossbred growing ewes[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2018, 49(7): 1405-1415. (in Chinese)
[21]	Zhang X Y, Du W C, Xie K L, Ran L J, Zhu W H, Hou F J. Supplementation with Lycium barbarum byproducts improves energy and nitrogen metabolism, and reduces methane emissions in sheep grazing alfalfa/tall fescue pastures[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2025, 23: 206-219. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2025.08.003
[22]	Wang X L, Ren N, Zheng Z B, Su Z Y, Dong C X, Du X X, Qin J X, Zhang W, He L W. Effects of substituting dietary corn with grain byproducts on fattening hu sheep: Growth performance, rumen fermentation, energy-nitrogen metabolism and greenhouse gas emissions[J]. Animals, 2026, 16(5): 786. doi: 10.3390/ani16050786
[23]	Dong L F, Li B C, Diao Q Y. Effects of dietary forage proportion on feed intake, growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and enteric methane emissions of Holstein heifers at various growth stages[J]. Animals, 2019, 9(10): 725. doi: 10.3390/ani9100725
[24]	刘志豪, 贾鹏, 赖琦, 董利锋, 吴秋珏, 高彦华, 田忠红, 刁其玉. 泌乳牛不同胎次干奶期瘤胃发酵指标与甲烷产量的特征[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2022, 53(12): 4296-4305. doi: 10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2022.12.015
	Liu Z H, Jia P, Lai Q, Dong L F, Wu Q J, Gao Y H, Tian Z H, Diao Q Y. Characteristics of rumen fermentation and methane production in different parity dry cows[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2022, 53(12): 4296-4305. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2022.12.015
[25]	Dong L F, Jia P, Li B C, Wang B, Yang C L, Liu Z H, Diao Q Y. Quantification and prediction of enteric methane emissions from Chinese lactating Holstein dairy cows fed diets with different dietary neutral detergent fiber/non-fibrous carbohydrate (NDF/NFC) ratios[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(3): 797-811. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63825-X
[26]	Jia P, Tu Y, Liu Z H, Lai Q, Li F D, Dong L F, Diao Q Y. Characterization and mitigation option of greenhouse gas emissions from lactating Holstein dairy cows in East China[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2022, 13(1): 88. doi: 10.1186/s40104-022-00721-3 pmid: 35799285
[27]	李晓鹏, 刘云龙, 崔甲军, 屠焰, 蒋林树, 成述儒. 基于GreenFeed系统研究绿原酸对泌乳中后期奶牛瘤胃甲烷排放、发酵参数和生产性能的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(14): 2904-2913. DOI: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.14.014.
	Li X P, Liu Y L, Cui J J, Tu Y, Jiang L S, Cheng S R. Effects of chlorogenic acid on rumen methane emission, fermentation parameters and performance of late lactating cows based on the GreenFeed system[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(14): 2904-2913.. DOI: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.14.014. (in Chinese)
[28]	Beauchemin K A, Kreuzer M, O’Mara F, McAllister T A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review[J]. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48(2): 21-27. doi: 10.1071/EA07199
[29]	Alvarez-Hess P S, Williams S R O, Jacobs J L, Hannah M C, Beauchemin K A, Eckard R J, Wales W J, Morris G L, Moate P J. Effect of dietary fat supplementation on methane emissions from dairy cows fed wheat or corn[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019, 102(3): 2714-2723. doi: S0022-0302(19)30057-8 pmid: 30660414
[30]	de Ondarza M B, de Souza V C, Kebreab E, Tricarico J M. Understanding potential opportunities and risks associated with feeding supplemental rumen available fats to mitigate enteric methane emissions in lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2024, 107(10): 8072-8083. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-24528 pmid: 38825101
[31]	van Zijderveld S M, Gerrits W J J, Dijkstra J, Newbold J R, Hulshof R B A, Perdok H B. Persistency of methane mitigation by dietary nitrate supplementation in dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2011, 94(8): 4028-4038. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4236 pmid: 21787938
[32]	Lin M, Schaefer D M, Zhao G Q, Meng Q X. Effects of nitrate adaptation by rumen inocula donors and substrate fiber proportion on in vitro nitrate disappearance, methanogenesis, and rumen fermentation acid[J]. Animal, 2013, 7(7): 1099-1105. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000116 pmid: 23391259
[33]	van Zijderveld S M, Gerrits W J J, Apajalahti J A, Newbold J R, Dijkstra J, Leng R A, Perdok H B. Nitrate and sulfate: Effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93(12): 5856-5866. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3281 pmid: 21094759
[34]	Duin E C, Wagner T, Shima S, Prakash D, Cronin B, Yáñez-Ruiz D R, Duval S, Rümbeli R, Stemmler R T, Thauer R K, Kindermann M. Mode of action uncovered for the specific reduction of methane emissions from ruminants by the small molecule 3-nitrooxypropanol[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(22): 6172-6177. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1600298113 pmid: 27140643
[35]	Melgar A, Welter K C, Nedelkov K, Martins C M M R, Harper M T, Oh J, Räisänen S E, Chen X, Cueva S F, Duval S, Hristov A N. Dose-response effect of 3-nitrooxypropanol on enteric methane emissions in dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2020, 103(7): 6145-6156. doi: S0022-0302(20)30258-7 pmid: 32278563
[36]	Kebreab E, Bannink A, Pressman E M, Walker N, Karagiannis A, van Gastelen S, Dijkstra J. A meta-analysis of effects of 3- nitrooxypropanol on methane production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2023, 106(2): 927-936. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-22211
[37]	Lambo M T, Ma H, Liu R, Dai B, Zhang Y, Li Y. Review: Mechanism, effectiveness, and the prospects of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds in lowering ruminants' enteric methane emission[J]. Animal, 2024, 18(4): 101134. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101134
[38]	Cieslak A, Szumacher-Strabel M, Stochmal A, Oleszek W. Plant components with specific activities against rumen methanogens[J]. Animal, 2013, 7: 253-265. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000852
[39]	Berça A S, Tedeschi L O, da Silva Cardoso A, Reis R A. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary condensed tannins and methane emissions by cattle[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2023, 298: 115564. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115564
[40]	Liu Y L, Ma T, Chen D D, Zhang N F, Si B W, Deng K D, Tu Y, Diao Q Y. Effects of tea saponin supplementation on nutrient digestibility, methanogenesis, and ruminal microbial flora in dorper crossbred ewe[J]. Animals, 2019, 9(1): 29. doi: 10.3390/ani9010029
[41]	McGurrin A, Maguire J, Tiwari B K, Garcia-Vaquero M. Anti- methanogenic potential of seaweeds and seaweed-derived compounds in ruminant feed: Current perspectives, risks and future prospects[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2023, 14(1): 145. doi: 10.1186/s40104-023-00946-w pmid: 38041152
[42]	Zhang P F, Roque B, Romero P, Shapiro N, Eloe-Fadrosh E, Kebreab E, Diamond S, Hess M. Red seaweed supplementation suppresses methanogenesis in the rumen, revealing potentially advantageous traits among hydrogenotrophic bacteria[J]. Microbiome, 2025, 13(1): 231. doi: 10.1186/s40168-025-02251-2
[43]	Liu Y L, Zhou M, Diao Q Y, Ma T, Tu Y. Seaweed as a feed additive to mitigate enteric methane emissions in ruminants: Opportunities and challenges[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2025, 24(4): 1327-1341. doi: 10.1016/j.jia.2024.09.036
[44]	Ncho C M, Kim S H, Rang S A, Lee S S. A meta-analysis of probiotic interventions to mitigate ruminal methane emissions in cattle: Implications for sustainable livestock farming[J]. Animal, 2024, 18(6): 101180. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101180
[45]	Durmic Z, Duin E C, Bannink A, Belanche A, Carbone V, Carro M D, Crüsemann M, Fievez V, Garcia F, Hristov A, Joch M, Martinez-Fernandez G, Muetzel S, Ungerfeld E M, Yáñez-Ruiz D R. Feed additives for methane mitigation: Recommendations for identification and selection of bioactive compounds to develop antimethanogenic feed additives[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2025, 108(1): 302-321. doi: 10.3168/jds.2024-25045 pmid: 39725500
[46]	Greening C, Geier R, Wang C, Woods L C, Morales S E, McDonald M J, Rushton-Green R, Morgan X C, Koike S, Leahy S C, Kelly W J, Cann I, Attwood G T, Cook G M, Mackie R I. Diverse hydrogen production and consumption pathways influence methane production in ruminants[J]. The ISME Journal, 2019, 13(10): 2617-2632. doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0464-2
[47]	Ungerfeld E M. Metabolic hydrogen flows in rumen fermentation: Principles and possibilities of interventions[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11: 589. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00589 pmid: 32351469
[48]	Leahy S C, Janssen P H, Attwood G T, Mackie R I, McAllister T A, Kelly W J. Electron flow: Key to mitigating ruminant methanogenesis[J]. Trends in Microbiology, 2022, 30(3): 209-212. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2021.12.005 pmid: 35027237
[49]	Zanon T, Baes C, Miglior F, Gierus M, Gauly M. Review: Effect of breeding strategies, feeding and manure management, to mitigate methane emissions in dairy cattle farming: An overview and the road ahead[J]. Animal, 2025, 19(9): 101617. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2025.101617
[50]	Wedlock D N, Janssen P H, Leahy S C, Shu D, Buddle B M. Progress in the development of vaccines against rumen methanogens[J]. Animal, 2013, 7: 244-252. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000682
[51]	Verra. VM0041 methodology for the reduction of enteric methane emissions from ruminants through the use of feed ingredients, v2.0[R]. Washington, DC: Verra, 2021.
[52]	Standard G. Reducing methane emissions from enteric fermentation in dairy cows through application of feed supplements[R]. Geneva, Switzerland: Gold Standard Foundation, 2018.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

排放源 Emission source	主要温室气体 Major GHG	主要减排路径 Mitigation approach	核算方法 Accounting method	主要制约 Key limitation
肠道发酵 Enteric fermentation	CH₄	精准营养、日粮优化、甲烷抑制 Precision nutrition, diet optimization, methane inhibition	Tier 2	本土排放因子不足 Limited local emission factor
粪污管理 Manure management	CH₄、N₂O	固液分离、厌氧发酵、堆肥 Solid-liquid separation, anaerobic digestion, composting	Tier 2	处理模式差异较大 Variable management system
稻田 Rice cultivation	CH₄	水分管理、秸秆还田优化 Water management, optimized straw incorporation	CH₄MOD、经验模型 CH₄MOD and empirical models	区域差异明显 Strong regional variation
农业土壤 Agricultural soils	N₂O	减氮增效、精准施肥、硝化抑制 Optimized N input, precision fertilization, nitrification inhibition	IAP-N	氮源与时空变异复杂 Complex N sources and spatiotemporal variation
秸秆田间焚烧 Field burning of crop residues	CH₄、N₂O	禁烧、资源化利用 Burning prohibition and resource utilization	活动数据×排放因子Activity data × emission factor	活动数据精度有限 Limited activity-data accuracy

指标类别 Metric category	代表指标 Representative metric	主要意义 Primary significance	适用场景 Application scene
排放总量 Absolute emissions	CH₄, g/d or L/d	单头绝对排放水平 Absolute animal-level emissions	畜种及处理比较 Animal and treatment comparisons
采食量校正 Intake-adjusted	CH₄/DMI、CH₄/OMI、CH₄/NDFI	单位采食甲烷产率 Methane yield per unit intake	日粮及添加剂评价 Diet and feed-additive evaluation
体重校正 Body weight-adjusted	CH₄/BW^0.75	校正体型差异 Adjusts for body-size differences	阶段、品种及畜种比较 Stage, breed and species comparisons
产品校正 Product-adjusted	CH₄/ECM、CH₄/ADG	单位产品排放强度 Product-based emission intensity	低碳奶、低碳肉评价 Low-carbon milk and meat assessment
能量损失 Energy loss	CH₄E、CH₄E/GEI	饲料能量损失 Feed-energy loss	能量利用评价 Energy-use evaluation
综合温室气体 Integrated GHG	CO₂-eq、产品碳足迹 CO₂-eq, product carbon footprint	综合温室气体评价 Integrated GHG assessment	场级核算、产品碳足迹及减排核证 Farm accounting, product carbon footprint and mitigation verification

研究对象与条件 Animal and condition	测定方法 Measurement method	CH₄实测值 Measured CH₄ emission	主要特征 Key feature
杜泊×小尾寒羊杂交羯羊 Dorper × Small Tail Han crossbred wethers	开路式呼吸测热 Open-circuit respiration calorimetry	35.98—43.43 L·d^-1	排放随日粮碳水化合物结构变化 Emissions varied with dietary carbohydrate structure
放牧杂交绵羊，6月龄 Grazing crossbred sheep, 6 months old	呼吸气体测定 Respiratory gas measurement	12.53—15.38 g·d^-1 8.33—15.34 g·kg^-1 DMI	补充放牧体系实测范围 Provides measurements under grazing conditions
育肥湖羊，不同日粮条件 Fattening Hu sheep, different diets	自动头箱 Automated head chamber	31.99—34.35 g·d^-1 18.91—19.60 g·kg^-1 DMI	补充育肥阶段生产条件实测数据 Provides measurements in fattening sheep
荷斯坦后备牛，9、12、15月龄 Holstein heifers, 9, 12 and 15 months old	SF₆示踪法 SF₆ tracer technique	105.2、137.4、209.4 g·d^-1	排放随月龄和体重总体升高 Emissions generally increased with age and body weight
荷斯坦干奶牛，48 头 Dry Holstein cows, n=48	GreenFeed	336 g·d^-1	排放与体重和胎次相关 Associated with body weight and parity
泌乳荷斯坦牛，商业牧场，111头 Lactating Holstein cows, commercial farm, n=111	GreenFeed	332 g·d^-1 14.4 g·kg^-1 DMI 9.18 g·kg^-1 ECM	大群体生产条件实测 Large-herd measurements under commercial conditions
泌乳中后期荷斯坦牛，30头 Mid- to late-lactation Holstein cows, n=30	GreenFeed	401.60—426.01 g·d^-1 11.31—12.19 g·kg^-1 ECM	补充近期泌乳牛实测范围 Provides recent measurements in lactating cows

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from China’s Agrifood System and Methane Mitigation Pathways in Ruminants

RichHTML

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 52

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	ZHU Qi, JIA ZhenPeng, Tahir SHAH, XU ChenSheng, LI ZhiQi, LÜ HuiShuai, ZHU PengChao, WEI XiaoMin, HUANG DongLin, SUN YanNi, CAO WeiDong, GAO YaJun, WANG ZhaoHui, ZHANG DaBin. Green Manure Crops Combined with Enhanced-Efficiency Products Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Footprints in Dryland Wheat Fields [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(7): 1507-1522.
[2]	JIA Peng, XIA Dong, SU YanJing, JIANG XueYuan, WEI ZiHai, LEI HuLong, KANG JinGuo, JIAO Chong, LU NaiSheng. Composition of Hydrogen-Producing Microorganisms in the Rumen of Ruminants and Their Regulation on Methanogenesis [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(20): 4642-4654.
[3]	JIA Peng, TU Yan, ZHANG NaiFeng, DIAO QiYu. Research Methods and Application Evaluation of Methane Inhibitors for Ruminants [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(20): 4630-4641.
[4]	GUO Song, HAN Lei, WANG Yuan, WANG ZiJun, QIAN ZiHui, LU JiaMing, ZHAO Can, WANG WeiLing, XU Ke, ZHANG HongCheng, YANG FengPing, HUO ZhongYang. Effect of One-Time Side Deep Application Ratios of Controlled-Release Nitrogen Fertilizer and Common Urea to Rice Yield, Nitrogen Fertilizer Efficiency and Carbon Emission Reduction [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(24): 5216-5233.
[5]	CAO JingWen, NIE ZhiGang, LI Guang, YANG Jie. Multi-Objective Optimization of Stable Yield and Emission Reduction of Dryland Spring Wheat Based on DNDC and NSGA-Ⅲ. Coupling Model [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(13): 2538-2551.
[6]	SUN JianFei, CHENG Kun. A Review of Soil Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Quantification in Cropland [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(11): 2190-2205.
[7]	GAO ShangJie, LIU XingRen, LI YingChun, LIU XiaoWan. Effects of Biochar and Straw Return on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming Potential in the Farmland [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(5): 935-949.
[8]	NIU KunYu, GE RuoHao, CHEN MeiAn, JIN ShuQin, LIU Jing. Structural Characteristics, Development Trends, and International Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in China’s Agri-Food System Under the Dual-Carbon Objectives [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(21): 4290-4307.
[9]	ZHOU YuanQing, DONG HongMin, ZHU ZhiPing, WANG Yue, LI NanXi. Review on Carbon Footprint Assessment of Pig Farming System [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(2): 379-389.
[10]	XIE Jun, YIN XueWei, WEI Ling, WANG ZiFang, LI QingHu, ZHANG XiaoChun, LU YuanYuan, WANG QiuYue, GAO Ming. Effects of Control Irrigation on Grain Yield and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ridge Cultivation Direct-Seeding Paddy Field [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(4): 697-710.
[11]	LIU GaoYuan, HE AiLing, DU Jun, LÜ JinLing, NIE ShengWei, PAN XiuYan, XU JiDong, LI Jue, YANG ZhanPing. Effect of Organic Fertilizer Replacing Chemical Fertilizer on Nitrous Oxide Emission from Wheat-Maize Rotation System in Lime Concretion Black Soil [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(16): 3156-3167.
[12]	SONG BoYing, GUO YanJie, WANG WenZan, LÜ ZeNan, ZHAO YuQing, LIU Lu, ZHANG LiJuan. Effects of Biochar Combined with Dicyandiamide on Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Facility Vegetable Soil [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(10): 1935-1948.
[13]	LI XiaoLi,HE TangQing,ZHANG ChenXi,TIAN MingHui,WU Mei,LI ChaoHai,YANG QingHua,ZHANG XueLin. Effect of Organic Fertilizer Replacing Chemical Fertilizers on Greenhouse Gas Emission Under the Conditions of Same Nitrogen Fertilizer Input in Maize Farmland [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(5): 948-961.
[14]	ZHANG XueLin, WU Mei, HE TangQing, ZHANG ChenXi, TIAN MingHui, LI XiaoLi, HOU XiaoPan, HAO XiaoFeng, YANG QingHua, LI ChaoHai. Effects of Crop Residue Decomposition on Soil Inorganic Nitrogen and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fluvo-Aquic Soil and Shajiang Black Soil [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(4): 729-742.
[15]	CHEN XuHao,GAO Qiang,CHEN XinPing,ZHANG WuShuai. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Resources Input and Environmental Effects for Maize Production in the Three Provinces of Northeast China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(16): 3170-3184.