A new approach for improving emission factors for enteric methane emissions of cattle in smallholder systems of East Africa – Results for Nyando, Western Kenya

J.P. Goopy, A.A. Onyango, U. Dickhoefer and K. Butterbach-Bahl

Agricultural Systems, 2018, vol. 161, issue C, 72-80

Abstract: In Africa, the agricultural sector is the largest sector of the domestic economy, and livestock, are a crucial component of agriculture, accounting for ~45% of the Kenyan agricultural GDP and >70% of African agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Accurate estimates of GHG emissions from livestock are required for inventory purposes and to assess the efficacy of mitigation measures, but most estimates rely on TIER I (default) IPCC protocols with major uncertainties coming from the IPCC methodology itself. Tier II estimates represent a significant improvement over the default methodology, however in less developed economies the required information is lacking or of uncertain reliability. In this study we developed an alternative methodology based on animal energy requirements derived from field measurements of live weight, live weight change, milk production and locomotion to estimate intake. Using on-farm data, we analysed feed samples to produce estimates of digestibility by season and region, then and used these data to estimate daily methane production by season, area and class of animal to produce new emission factors (EF) for annual enteric CH4 production. Mean Dry Matter Digestibility of the feed basket was in the range of 58–64%, depending on region and season (around 10% greater than TIER I estimates). EFs were substantially lower for adolescent and adult male (30.1, 35.9 versus 49kg CH4) and for adolescent and adult female (23.0, 28.3 versus 41kg), but not calves (15.7 versus 16kg) than those given for “other” African cattle in IPCC (Tier I) estimates. It is stressed that this study is the first of its kind for Sub-Sharan Africa relying on animal measurements, but should not automatically be extrapolated outside of its geographic range. It does however, point out the need for further measurements, and highlights the value of using a robust methodology which does not rely on the (often invalid) assumption of ad libitum intake in systems where intake is known or likely to be restricted.

Keywords: Enteric methane; Ruminant; Cattle; GHG inventory; East Africa (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17305267
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agisys:v:161:y:2018:i:c:p:72-80

DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.12.004

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Systems is currently edited by J.W. Hansen, P.K. Thornton and P.B.M. Berentsen

More articles in Agricultural Systems from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().