Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, enteric methane emissions from sheep contribute around 7 % to the national greenhouse gas (GHG) budget. This study examined the gross energy intake (GEI) and enteric methane emission factors (EFs) of sheep in smallholder systems in North Shewa, Ethiopia, using locally derived data via h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gurmu, E.B., Ndung’u, Phyllis, Wilkes, A., Getahun, D., Graham, Michael, Leitner, Sonja, Marquardt, Svenja, Mulat, Daniel, Merbold, Lutz, Worku, Tigist, Gakige, Jesse K., Tadesse, D., Bekele, M., Arndt, Claudia
Formato: Journal Article
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: Elsevier 2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/163368
_version_ 1855527459246571520
author Gurmu, E.B.
Ndung’u, Phyllis
Wilkes, A.
Getahun, D.
Graham, Michael
Leitner, Sonja
Marquardt, Svenja
Mulat, Daniel
Merbold, Lutz
Worku, Tigist
Gakige, Jesse K.
Tadesse, D.
Bekele, M.
Arndt, Claudia
author_browse Arndt, Claudia
Bekele, M.
Gakige, Jesse K.
Getahun, D.
Graham, Michael
Gurmu, E.B.
Leitner, Sonja
Marquardt, Svenja
Merbold, Lutz
Mulat, Daniel
Ndung’u, Phyllis
Tadesse, D.
Wilkes, A.
Worku, Tigist
author_facet Gurmu, E.B.
Ndung’u, Phyllis
Wilkes, A.
Getahun, D.
Graham, Michael
Leitner, Sonja
Marquardt, Svenja
Mulat, Daniel
Merbold, Lutz
Worku, Tigist
Gakige, Jesse K.
Tadesse, D.
Bekele, M.
Arndt, Claudia
author_sort Gurmu, E.B.
collection Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace)
description In Ethiopia, enteric methane emissions from sheep contribute around 7 % to the national greenhouse gas (GHG) budget. This study examined the gross energy intake (GEI) and enteric methane emission factors (EFs) of sheep in smallholder systems in North Shewa, Ethiopia, using locally derived data via household surveys. The surveys encompassed two agroecological zones (AEZs) and analyzed various sheep classes across seasons. The study followed the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Tier 2 methodology, which had previously been used in Kenya, and compared the results with those derived from the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Tier 2) methodology. The EFs from the two Tier 2 methodologies were compared with IPCC default Tier 1 EF. The ranges of GEI and EF estimated for the different sheep classes showed similarity with larger variations observed for IPCC Tier 2 estimates. The estimated GEI for the various sheep classes ranged from 11.1 to 13.8 MJ day−1 (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 10.2–14.7 MJ day−1 (IPCC Tier 2). The estimated EFs ranged from 4.8 to 5.9 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1 (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 4.5–6.5 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1 (IPCC Tier 2). The flock-level EF was computed by aggregating the EFs of the different sheep categories. The flock level EF estimated by the IPCC Tier 2 (6.0 ± 0.1 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1) was significantly higher compared to both the 'CSIRO' Tier 2 and IPCC Tier 1 methods. Based on the findings, we can say that variations in EF values emphasize the significance of taking different Tier 2 approaches into account when evaluating and comparing CH4 emissions estimates in smallholder sheep farming systems. However, there is a need for further investigations to compare the two Tier 2 methodologies against actual intake and emission measurements to decide which methodology is better.
format Journal Article
id CGSpace163368
institution CGIAR Consortium
language Inglés
publishDate 2024
publishDateRange 2024
publishDateSort 2024
publisher Elsevier
publisherStr Elsevier
record_format dspace
spelling CGSpace1633682025-12-08T10:11:39Z Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia Gurmu, E.B. Ndung’u, Phyllis Wilkes, A. Getahun, D. Graham, Michael Leitner, Sonja Marquardt, Svenja Mulat, Daniel Merbold, Lutz Worku, Tigist Gakige, Jesse K. Tadesse, D. Bekele, M. Arndt, Claudia greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gases sheep small ruminants smallholders In Ethiopia, enteric methane emissions from sheep contribute around 7 % to the national greenhouse gas (GHG) budget. This study examined the gross energy intake (GEI) and enteric methane emission factors (EFs) of sheep in smallholder systems in North Shewa, Ethiopia, using locally derived data via household surveys. The surveys encompassed two agroecological zones (AEZs) and analyzed various sheep classes across seasons. The study followed the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Tier 2 methodology, which had previously been used in Kenya, and compared the results with those derived from the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Tier 2) methodology. The EFs from the two Tier 2 methodologies were compared with IPCC default Tier 1 EF. The ranges of GEI and EF estimated for the different sheep classes showed similarity with larger variations observed for IPCC Tier 2 estimates. The estimated GEI for the various sheep classes ranged from 11.1 to 13.8 MJ day−1 (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 10.2–14.7 MJ day−1 (IPCC Tier 2). The estimated EFs ranged from 4.8 to 5.9 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1 (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 4.5–6.5 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1 (IPCC Tier 2). The flock-level EF was computed by aggregating the EFs of the different sheep categories. The flock level EF estimated by the IPCC Tier 2 (6.0 ± 0.1 kg CH4 animal−1 year−1) was significantly higher compared to both the 'CSIRO' Tier 2 and IPCC Tier 1 methods. Based on the findings, we can say that variations in EF values emphasize the significance of taking different Tier 2 approaches into account when evaluating and comparing CH4 emissions estimates in smallholder sheep farming systems. However, there is a need for further investigations to compare the two Tier 2 methodologies against actual intake and emission measurements to decide which methodology is better. 2024-11 2024-12-11T16:32:05Z 2024-12-11T16:32:05Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/163368 en Open Access Elsevier Gurmu, E.B., Ndung’u, P.W., Wilkes, A., Getahun, D., Graham, M.W., Leitner, S.M., Marquardt, S., Mulat, D.G., Merbold, L., Worku, T., Gakige, J.K., Tadesse, D., Bekele, M. and Arndt, C. 2024. Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia. Small Ruminant Research 240:107362.
spellingShingle greenhouse gas emissions
greenhouse gases
sheep
small ruminants
smallholders
Gurmu, E.B.
Ndung’u, Phyllis
Wilkes, A.
Getahun, D.
Graham, Michael
Leitner, Sonja
Marquardt, Svenja
Mulat, Daniel
Merbold, Lutz
Worku, Tigist
Gakige, Jesse K.
Tadesse, D.
Bekele, M.
Arndt, Claudia
Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title_full Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title_fullStr Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title_short Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia
title_sort comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in africa a case study from ethiopia
topic greenhouse gas emissions
greenhouse gases
sheep
small ruminants
smallholders
url https://hdl.handle.net/10568/163368
work_keys_str_mv AT gurmueb comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT ndunguphyllis comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT wilkesa comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT getahund comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT grahammichael comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT leitnersonja comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT marquardtsvenja comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT mulatdaniel comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT merboldlutz comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT workutigist comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT gakigejessek comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT tadessed comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT bekelem comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia
AT arndtclaudia comparisonofmethodologiesforestimatingentericmethaneemissionfactorsfromsheepinsmallholdersystemsinafricaacasestudyfromethiopia