Objective: Our objective was to assess Colorado beef and dairy cattle producers’ perceptions of the feasibility and current barriers to adopting enteric and manure methane reduction strategies.

Materials and Methods: A survey was designed to assess Colorado beef and dairy cattle producers’ perceptions of the feasibility and barriers to technical solutions for reducing methane emissions from enteric and manure sources. Screening questions ensured the respondents were Colorado-located cow-calf or stocker, feedyard owner or operators, or dairy producers. Surveys were distributed electronically. Respondents received a series of 6-point Likert scale questions about the feasibility of methane reduction strategies. Survey questions included strategies common to all producer types and producer-specific methane reduction strategies. The survey included a final, open-ended question focused on identifying the most important consideration for implementing a potential methane reduction strategy.

Results and Discussion: A total of 110 complete responses were received. Across all producer types, vaccines were identified as the most feasible strategy followed by feed additives. For feed additives, dietary strategies, and modifying breeding/genetics, a greater proportion of respondents rated these strategies as “not at all” or “not very” feasible compared with “absolutely” or “very” feasible. Top barriers across common reduction strategies were cost associated with implementation and negative impacts on product quality. Top rated strategies varied by producer type; however, modifying breeding/genetics was consistently rated with the lowest feasibility across beef and dairy producers. Responses to the open-ended question indicated a general skepticism of the importance of reducing methane emissions, an emphasis on taking a more holistic view of the environmental benefits of cattle production, and concerns about the long-term implications of new methane reduction strategies such as vaccines and feed additives on animal welfare and productivity.

Implications and Applications: Feasibility of different methane reduction strategies varied by producer type, but concerns about implementation cost, logistics, and impacts on animal welfare, productivity, and product quality were consistent. These results indicate adoption of methane reduction strategies would benefit from context specific approaches that incorporate financial incentives. Further qualitative research would advance understanding of producer motivations, concerns, and contextual factors important to the adoption of methane reduction strategies.