Abstract
Enteric fermentation in the rumen accounts for approximately 50 percent of methane emissions
from dairy cattle, making it a primary target for mitigation efforts (Dijkstra et al., 2018; Hristov
et al., 2022). Among the most promising intervention strategies are feed additives, including
3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP). However, the reported methane reduction potential varies across
studies as a function of dosage, diet composition, and duration of treatment. As a result, the
reported effectiveness in reports about methane reduction potentials tends to reflect a range
of possible methane reductions with substantial uncertainty (de Oliveira et al., 2025; Kebreab
et al., 2023, 2025).
Emerging evidence suggests that consumers exhibit a positive WTP for low methane food.
Davidson et al. (2025) find that consumers are willing to pay a premium for seaweed-based over 3-
NOP-based ground beef, yet associate each additive with only a single point estimate of methane
reduction potential (95 and 40 percent, respectively), leaving the effect of variability of methane
reductions unexamined. A related concern arises from another study design: Luke & Tonsor
(2025) report the strongest relative preference for seaweed as a methane reduction strategy, but
describe 3-NOP as synthetic and seaweed as natural, precluding identification of whether the
observed preference reflects genuine beliefs about methane reduction efficacy or a naturalness
halo effect. Disentangling these mechanisms is essential for drawing reliable conclusions for the
market potential of feed additives. On the supply side, Gottlieb & Rommel (2025) demonstrate
that the probability of adoption of 3-NOP increases with perceived effectiveness and advise from
farm advisors for dairy farmers in Sweden.
The range in scientific estimates of 3-NOP’s effectiveness, combined with the spread of
misinformation across media platforms and varying levels of trust in dairy stakeholders, may
collectively shape how consumers value methane reducing feed additives. To explore this, we
examine whether exposure to varying efficacy information, media consumption habits, and trust
in relevant information providers influence consumer WTP for milk produced with 3-NOP. We
adapt the framework of Kumar et al. (2023), who identify the causal effect of uncertainty on
economic decisions by measuring prior and posterior beliefs around randomized information
treatments. Belief updating is measured by regressing posterior beliefs on prior beliefs and
treatment assignment, where the coefficient on the treatment indicator captures the shift in
posteriors conditional on the prior (Haaland et al., 2023; Coibion et al., 2024; Dietrich et al.,
2024). We apply a Best Worst Scaling approach for examining relative preference shares for
emission reducing policies. Due to substantial differences of public preferences and trust in
relevant stakeholders across high income countries, we intend to compare findings of selected
survey parts with researcher teams in other high income countries (Marette et al., 2021; Fesenfeld
et al., 2020).
Accordingly, we formulate the following research questions:
1. How does information provision about methane reduction effectiveness shape consumer
WTP for 3-NOP milk?
2. To what extend do consumers update their beliefs when provided with scientific informa-
tion about methane reduction effectiveness? How does media consumption and trust in
information providers influence the degree of updating beliefs?
3. What are relative preferences for strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from the
U.S. dairy industry, and how do these preferences align with the subjective priorities of
key U.S. dairy industry stakeholders?
4. Do prior beliefs about the effectiveness in methane reducing technologies vary by countries?