Emission factors and carbon emissions of methane from enteric fermentation of cattle produced under different management systems in South Africa

Enteric Methane Emission Estimates for Kenyan Cattle in a Nighttime Enclosure Using a Backward Lagrangian Stochastic Dispersion Technique

“…The existing studies used additional data including daily weight increase, locomotion, and milk yield to indirectly calculate methane emissions from energy expenditure, whereas we directly measured the methane concentrations. Our mean EF value is close to the EFs in the South African studies (Kouazounde et al 2015;Tongwane and Moeletsi 2020) which seems plausible since the mean LW in our study was similar to the ones in their studies.…”

“…However, the observed breeds and the corresponding different LWs differ widely and limit the comparability. The observed LWs range from 162.3 kg in the IPCC values (Dong et al 2006) to up to 440 kg in the study from Tongwane and Moeletsi (2020). Du Toit et al (2013) observed Holstein and Jersey cattle in South Africa, Kouazounde et al (2015) observed Borgou, Somba and Lagune breeds in Benin, Goopy et al (2018), andNdung'u et al (2019) collected their data from East African shorthorn Zebus and Zebu -Bos Taurus crossbreeds from smallholder livestock systems.…”

“…Du Toit et al (2013) observed Holstein and Jersey cattle in South Africa, Kouazounde et al (2015) observed Borgou, Somba and Lagune breeds in Benin, Goopy et al (2018), andNdung'u et al (2019) collected their data from East African shorthorn Zebus and Zebu -Bos Taurus crossbreeds from smallholder livestock systems. Goopy et al (2020) observed Boran yearling steers, whereas, Tongwane and Moeletsi (2020) Kouazounde et al (2015) collated the data they used for their EF calculations from different sources of country-specific data as proposed by the IPCC (Dong et al 2006) The other study cited here, Goopy et al (2020), tested the relationship between feed intake and enteric CH4 production to simulate the influence of the dry seasons by feeding different maintenance energy requirement levels. Their mean EF is higher than the one from Goopy et al (2018) despite lower LW.…”

“…Du Toit et al (2013) observed Holstein and Jersey cattle in South Africa, Kouazounde et al (2015) observed Borgou, Somba and Lagune breeds in Benin, Goopy et al (2018), andNdung'u et al (2019) collected their data from East African shorthorn Zebus and Zebu -Bos Taurus crossbreeds from smallholder livestock systems. Goopy et al (2020) observed Boran yearling steers, whereas, Tongwane and Moeletsi (2020) looked at the total number of South African cattle including multiple breeds with Bonsmara being the dominant beef cattle breed. In addition, this study observed mature female Zebu -Bos Taurus crossbreeds.…”

“…live weight (LW) as well as detailed feed basket information) to derive region-specific emission factors (Gavrilova et al 2019). Available studies that have developed and/or used Tier 2 EFs in SSA countries show substantial differences to the Tier 1 estimates (Du Toit et al 2013;Goopy et al 2018;Kouazounde et al 2015;Ndung'u et al 2019;Tongwane and Moeletsi 2020). Tier 2 values are expected to be superior to the Tier 1 values by taking more data into account and have so far been developed for smallholder farming systems and/or dairy systems in SSA but not yet for pastoral livestock systmes.…”