The enteric methane emission conundrum: U.S. beef cattle producer adoption of climate-focused technology

Cattle are ruminant livestock that emit enteric methane (CH₄) as part of their natural digestive process. The U.S. beef cattle industry is receiving pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including methane. The U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef has set a target for the U.S. feedlot sector to reduce emissions by 10 % per pound of beef by 2030. Feed additive 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) has been developed to help mitigate methane emissions. While not yet approved for use in U.S. beef production, adoption of 3-NOP in U.S. feedlots upon approval remains unknown as no widespread economic incentive currently exists in the marketplace to spur adoption. The objectives of this study are: (1) to determine potential 3-NOP adoption by U.S. feedlot cattle producers given various marketplace incentives and (2) to explore how differing approaches to reducing emissions from beef production to achieve sector targets impact social welfare. Our study uses data from a U.S. feedlot producer survey to estimate willingness-to-adopt (WTA) measures. Regression results are used to map potential adoption of 3-NOP given various market and policy scenarios. The survey sample is then split into small producers (<2000 head sold in last 12 months) and large producers (2000+ head sold in last 12 months) to determine differences in WTA based on operation size. We find that producers prefer incentives in the form of processor premiums over government subsidies. The incentive level needed to spur adoption increases as the implementation cost of 3-NOP increases and decreases if net profit estimations are included in the messaging. On average, small producers require a higher incentive to adopt 3-NOP than large producers. Improving the emissions reduction efficacy of 3-NOP reduces the level of incentive needed to achieve aggregate emissions targets. The least expensive avenue to achieve emissions reduction targets results in greater outlays to large producers as compared to small producers. The marginal cost to society of feeding 3-NOP to an additional steer or heifer in the feedlot increases with each animal. As such, it may be that improving the efficacy of 3-NOP through increased investment in research and development is less costly than spurring more producers to adopt the additive in their feed rations. Ultimately, producers, processors, beef consumers, voting residents, taxpayers, and policymakers all have influence in shaping how the beef industry tackles the emissions reduction conundrum.