For a dairy farm, a methane reduction matters only if it can be achieved without giving away milk, compromising cow performance or adding costs that outweigh the benefit. A new result from INIA Remehue in Osorno is encouraging on the first measure: researchers reported that small quantities of red and brown seaweed in dairy-cow feed cut enteric methane emissions by about 12% without affecting milk volume. The finding, presented by researcher Ignacio Beltrán at a seminar organized by Fedeleche and Chile’s Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, is a useful lead—not yet a recipe to put straight into the mixer wagon.
A promising result, with farm questions still open
The report, published by El Fuerte on 15 October 2026, does not specify a commercial product, the full trial protocol or the cost of supplying the seaweed. Those gaps matter in practice. Before making a ration change, a producer and nutrition adviser would need to establish what material was used, at what inclusion rate, how consistently it can be sourced, and whether the observed response holds under the farm’s own diet, herd and management conditions. The reported result does not answer those questions, so it should not be treated as a guaranteed 12% reduction on every farm.
The production detail is important: methane mitigation should be assessed alongside milk output, not as a standalone percentage. MaxMedia’s earlier guidance notes that sustained reductions in methane per unit of energy-corrected milk, while maintaining productivity, are the relevant test for mitigation options. It also stresses that production level and efficiency are themselves important levers.
Put the figure in the right context
Methane is produced mainly through rumen fermentation, and most is emitted through eructation. It represents both an environmental concern and an energy loss from the cow: house reference material notes that methane can account for up to 12% of gross energy intake. That makes a feed-based intervention worth investigating, but it does not remove the need to protect intake, digestion and output.
Earlier MaxMedia guidance groups nutrition and feeding approaches as typically delivering reductions in methane per unit of energy-corrected milk in the range of 5% to 15%, while emphasizing that the effect depends on feed quality, digestibility, passage rate and ration design. The INIA Remehue result sits within that broad practical range, but the available report gives too little trial detail to compare it directly with other interventions or to infer how the response was measured.
Use a decision process, not a headline
For a working farm, the sensible next step is to ask the feed supplier, nutritionist or research contact for the trial details and a local costed assessment—not to assume seaweed is immediately available or suitable. If a product and protocol become clear, evaluate it in a controlled way: record the baseline ration and milk performance, agree on the methane measure and measurement period, and track feed intake and milk volume alongside the emissions result. Any on-farm test should be designed with an adviser so the comparison is meaningful and cows remain on a nutritionally sound ration.
The broader principle is to judge changes by whole-system efficiency. Genetic improvement in feed efficiency, fertility, health and cow size, alongside good forage and nutrition, can contribute to lower emissions per unit of milk; reducing illness also protects production and avoids a higher footprint per litre. A seaweed feed additive, if its value is confirmed, would be one possible tool within that programme—not a substitute for sound herd and feeding management.
What to watch for next
The INIA Remehue finding gives the dairy sector a concrete reason to follow Chilean research: a modest seaweed inclusion was associated with about 12% lower enteric methane and no reported loss of milk volume. But farm adoption needs more than an emissions figure. Producers should look for the ingredient specification, inclusion level, trial design, repeatability, supply arrangements and economics. Until those are available, treat the result as a promising research signal and keep the farm’s central test in view: can emissions fall while milk production and business performance hold?
Key points
- INIA Remehue researchers in Osorno reported about 12% lower enteric methane with small quantities of red and brown seaweed, without affecting milk volume.
- The report does not provide a commercial product, full trial protocol or cost, so the result is not yet a ready-to-use ration recommendation.
- Any farm evaluation should track emissions alongside feed intake and milk performance, and be planned with a nutrition adviser.
- Judge methane options by sustained emissions reduction per unit of milk while protecting productivity and whole-farm efficiency.