Comparison of Tier 1 and 2 methodologies for estimating intake and enteric methane emission factors from smallholder cattle systems in Africa: a case study from Ethiopia

E.B. Gurmu , P.W. Ndung'u , A. Wilkes , D. Getahun , M.W. Graham , S.M. Leitner , S. Marquardt , D.G. Mulat , L. Merbold , T. Worku , J.G. Kagai , C. Arndt
{"title":"Comparison of Tier 1 and 2 methodologies for estimating intake and enteric methane emission factors from smallholder cattle systems in Africa: a case study from Ethiopia","authors":"E.B. Gurmu ,&nbsp;P.W. Ndung'u ,&nbsp;A. Wilkes ,&nbsp;D. Getahun ,&nbsp;M.W. Graham ,&nbsp;S.M. Leitner ,&nbsp;S. Marquardt ,&nbsp;D.G. Mulat ,&nbsp;L. Merbold ,&nbsp;T. Worku ,&nbsp;J.G. Kagai ,&nbsp;C. Arndt","doi":"10.1016/j.anopes.2024.100064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Considering the potential environmental impact of livestock production and the significance of accurate estimation methods, it is crucial to assess the differences between various methodologies. The study compared the gross energy intake (<strong>GEI</strong>) and enteric methane (<strong>CH<sub>4</sub></strong>) emission factors (<strong>EF</strong> = kg CH<sub>4</sub>/head/year) of cattle based on three methodologies: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<strong>IPCC</strong>) Tier 1, IPCC Tier 2 and a modified Tier 2 methodology based on Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (‘<strong>CSIRO</strong>’) Tier 2. Data were collected from smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems in the upper highland sub-humid to semi-humid (<strong>AEZ-1</strong>) and lower highland sub-humid to semi-humid (<strong>AEZ-2</strong>) zones of North Shewa, Ethiopia, corresponding to the beginning and end of spring, summer, and winter. The results revealed that the IPCC Tier 2 methodology estimated a 39% higher GEI (104 vs 74 MJ/ head<sup>/</sup>day) and a 51% higher implied EF (50 vs 33 kg CH<sub>4</sub> /head/year) compared to the ‘CSIRO’ Tier 2 methodology. When compared to the IPCC Tier 1 default values, both the IPCC and ‘CSIRO’ Tier 2 EF estimates were 20–37% and 37–59% lower, respectively. Furthermore, all cattle categories exhibited variations in implied daily CH<sub>4</sub> production across seasons. As all the GEI were estimated, it is not possible to determine which methodology is more accurate. Therefore, future research should compare predicted intakes and emissions with actual experimental data to ascertain the accuracy of the models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100083,"journal":{"name":"Animal - Open Space","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694024000049/pdfft?md5=ad5240c51727df2928ac772ac14621aa&pid=1-s2.0-S2772694024000049-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal - Open Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694024000049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considering the potential environmental impact of livestock production and the significance of accurate estimation methods, it is crucial to assess the differences between various methodologies. The study compared the gross energy intake (GEI) and enteric methane (CH4) emission factors (EF = kg CH4/head/year) of cattle based on three methodologies: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1, IPCC Tier 2 and a modified Tier 2 methodology based on Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (‘CSIRO’) Tier 2. Data were collected from smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems in the upper highland sub-humid to semi-humid (AEZ-1) and lower highland sub-humid to semi-humid (AEZ-2) zones of North Shewa, Ethiopia, corresponding to the beginning and end of spring, summer, and winter. The results revealed that the IPCC Tier 2 methodology estimated a 39% higher GEI (104 vs 74 MJ/ head/day) and a 51% higher implied EF (50 vs 33 kg CH4 /head/year) compared to the ‘CSIRO’ Tier 2 methodology. When compared to the IPCC Tier 1 default values, both the IPCC and ‘CSIRO’ Tier 2 EF estimates were 20–37% and 37–59% lower, respectively. Furthermore, all cattle categories exhibited variations in implied daily CH4 production across seasons. As all the GEI were estimated, it is not possible to determine which methodology is more accurate. Therefore, future research should compare predicted intakes and emissions with actual experimental data to ascertain the accuracy of the models.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估算非洲小农养牛系统摄入量和肠道甲烷排放系数的第 1 级和第 2 级方法比较:埃塞俄比亚的案例研究
考虑到畜牧业生产对环境的潜在影响以及准确估算方法的重要性,评估各种方法之间的差异至关重要。这项研究比较了基于三种方法的牛的总能量摄入量 (GEI) 和肠道甲烷 (CH4) 排放系数(EF = 千克 CH4/头/年):政府间气候变化专门委员会 (IPCC) 第 1 级、IPCC 第 2 级和基于英联邦科学与工业研究组织 (CSIRO) 第 2 级的修正第 2 级方法。数据收集自埃塞俄比亚北谢瓦高地亚湿润至半湿润区(AEZ-1)和低地亚湿润至半湿润区(AEZ-2)的小农作物-牲畜混合系统,时间分别为春季、夏季和冬季的开始和结束。结果表明,与 "CSIRO "第 2 级方法相比,IPCC 第 2 级方法估算出的 GEI(104 兆焦耳/头/天 vs 74 兆焦耳/头/天)高出 39%,隐含 EF(50 千克 CH4 vs 33 千克 CH4/头/年)高出 51%。与 IPCC 第 1 级默认值相比,IPCC 和 "CSIRO "第 2 级 EF 估计值分别低 20%-37% 和 37-59%。此外,所有牛类在不同季节的隐含甲烷日产量都有变化。由于所有 GEI 都是估算出来的,因此无法确定哪种方法更准确。因此,未来的研究应将预测的摄入量和排放量与实际实验数据进行比较,以确定模型的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of the breed and litter breed composition on the growth, survival, and health of rabbits The effect of age on D20, D40 and live foal rates in the Clydesdale mare Impact of the amount of milk replacer offers to Holstein dairy heifers on pre- and postweaning growth Corrigendum to “The role of anti-E. coli antibody from maternal colostrum on the colonization of newborn dairy calves gut with Escherichia coli and the development of clinical diarrhea” [Animal Open Space 2 (2023) 100037] Method: Body composition assessment of sows using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1