Endale B. Gurmu , Phyllis W. Ndung’u , Andreas Wilkes , Daniel Getahun , Michael W. Graham , Sonja M. Leitner , Svenja Marquardt , Daniel G. Mulat , Lutz Merbold , Tigist Worku , Jesse K. Gakige , Dereje Tadesse , Mekete Bekele , Claudia Arndt
{"title":"非洲小农系统中羊的肠道甲烷排放系数估算方法比较：埃塞俄比亚案例研究","authors":"Endale B. Gurmu , Phyllis W. Ndung’u , Andreas Wilkes , Daniel Getahun , Michael W. Graham , Sonja M. Leitner , Svenja Marquardt , Daniel G. Mulat , Lutz Merbold , Tigist Worku , Jesse K. Gakige , Dereje Tadesse , Mekete Bekele , Claudia Arndt","doi":"10.1016/j.smallrumres.2024.107362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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<sup>−1</sup> (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 10.2–14.7 MJ day<sup>−1</sup> (IPCC Tier 2). The estimated EFs ranged from 4.8 to 5.9 kg CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 4.5–6.5 kg CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (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 CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>) 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 CH<sub>4</sub> 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21758,"journal":{"name":"Small Ruminant Research","volume":"240 ","pages":"Article 107362"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448824001688/pdfft?md5=ce8e0b15982b2aab22dc0ed13c3ffa1b&pid=1-s2.0-S0921448824001688-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of methodologies for estimating enteric methane emission factors from sheep in smallholder systems in Africa: A case study from Ethiopia\",\"authors\":\"Endale B. Gurmu , Phyllis W. Ndung’u , Andreas Wilkes , Daniel Getahun , Michael W. Graham , Sonja M. Leitner , Svenja Marquardt , Daniel G. Mulat , Lutz Merbold , Tigist Worku , Jesse K. Gakige , Dereje Tadesse , Mekete Bekele , Claudia Arndt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.smallrumres.2024.107362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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<sup>−1</sup> (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 10.2–14.7 MJ day<sup>−1</sup> (IPCC Tier 2). The estimated EFs ranged from 4.8 to 5.9 kg CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (‘CSIRO’ Tier 2) and 4.5–6.5 kg CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (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 CH<sub>4</sub> animal<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>) 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 CH<sub>4</sub> 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Small Ruminant Research\",\"volume\":\"240 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448824001688/pdfft?md5=ce8e0b15982b2aab22dc0ed13c3ffa1b&pid=1-s2.0-S0921448824001688-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Small Ruminant Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448824001688\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Small Ruminant Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448824001688","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.
期刊介绍：
Small Ruminant Research publishes original, basic and applied research articles, technical notes, and review articles on research relating to goats, sheep, deer, the New World camelids llama, alpaca, vicuna and guanaco, and the Old World camels.
Topics covered include nutrition, physiology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, ethology, product technology, socio-economics, management, sustainability and environment, veterinary medicine and husbandry engineering.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
