ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Clim.

Sec. Climate Adaptation

Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1592677

This article is part of the Research TopicSustainable and Climate Resilient Livestock SystemsView all 6 articles

Methane Reductions with Gypsum and SOP ® Lagoon Additives in Liquid Manure

Provisionally accepted
Chelsea  SauvéChelsea Sauvé1,2Hambaliou  BaldéHambaliou Baldé1Rajinikanth  RajagopalRajinikanth Rajagopal3Andrew  VanderZaagAndrew VanderZaag1*
  • 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, Canada
  • 2University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
  • 3Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The agriculture industry is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions globally with livestock production being a main contributor. Therefore, there is a need to reduce methane (CH4) emissions from livestock production, including liquid manure storages. Using an additive that decreases methanogenesis is one approach currently being considered. This study tests two additives: SOP ® Lagoon (a commercial additive) and a commonly used, local fertiliser, gypsum.The objective was to determine the capability of the two products to reduce CH4 emissions. Tests were done at 24°C in the laboratory with multiple rates of the additives (100, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000 g/m 3 ). Methane produced by untreated dairy manure (control) was compared to manure with addition of gypsum or SOP ® Lagoon over 162 days. Results showed that peak CH4 reduction occurred between 20 and 30 days, then declined. The lowest dose of both additives (100 g/m 3 ) did not significantly reduce CH4 over the duration of the study. Efficacy increased non-linearly with an increasing dose up to 5,000 g/m 3 . After 30 days, CH4 reduction decreased by 32%, 73%, 74% for SOP ® Lagoon rates 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 g/m 3 , and 20%, 60%, and 63% for gypsum. Both SOP ® Lagoon and local gypsum showed similar reduction in methane emissions at similar application rates. This is an indication that farmers can confidently use locally sourced gypsum, a low-cost alternative to the commercial additive, without affecting the overall mitigation potential.

Keywords: Methane, mitigation, sulfate, Slurry storage, Animal agriculture

Received: 12 Mar 2025; Accepted: 19 Jun 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Sauvé, Baldé, Rajagopal and VanderZaag. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Andrew VanderZaag, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, Canada

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.