Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Emission factors and carbon emissions of methane from enteric

fermentation of cattle produced under different management systems
in South Africa
Mphethe I. Tongwane a, b, *, Mokhele E. Moeletsi a, c
a
Agricultural Research Council - Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Private Bag X79, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa
b
Department of Geography, University of the Free State, QwaQwa Campus, Private Bag X13, Phuthadithjaba, 9866, South Africa
c
Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Centre, University of Limpopo, Private Bag X1106, Sovenga, 0727, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Production of livestock is important for sustainability of human nutrition and overall livelihoods. De-
Received 18 September 2019 mand for livestock products is increasing due to the growing global human population. Cattle production
Received in revised form plays an important role in South Africa’s socio-economics and largely benefits from vast rangelands
16 April 2020
available for grazing. Similarly, cattle and their management are significant emitters of greenhouse gases.
Accepted 26 April 2020
Available online 1 May 2020
Quantification of past cattle emissions in the country is, however, affected by unreliable activity data and
emission factors. This study therefore aims to calculate emission factors for methane (CH4) produced by
Handling editor: Yutao Wang cattle during enteric fermentation and the related historical CH4 carbon emissions. The emission factors
are developed for each cattle subcategory and management system. Feeding practices are collated from
Keywords: the survey conducted in 2015 and the literature. Dairy cattle have the highest emission factors, followed
Emission intensity by subsistence beef and commercial beef cattle. However, the large population of commercial beef cattle
Dairy cattle results in the highest total emissions by category whilst dairy cattle are the smallest producers of CH4. Of
Commercial beef cattle the total CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation of 0.87 million tonnes in 2018, commercial beef cattle
Subsistence beef cattle
contributed 48% while subsistence beef cattle and dairy cattle accounted for 36% and 17% respectively.
Mitigation
Declining population particularly of commercial beef cattle results in a reduction in emissions with time.
Trends of implied emission factors and emissions per energy-corrected milk and animal carcass weight
for beef cattle show that cattle production efficiencies are improving in South Africa. Despite relatively
lower meat prices for beef compared to poultry, poultry consumption in the country is higher than that
of beef and is still growing. This pattern will out-market beef consumption and ultimately cause the
emissions to decline.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 120e130 g capita
1 day
1 respectively (Meissner et al., 2013a). The

Production of livestock in South Africa is important in both so-
cial and economic aspects (Meissner et al., 2013a). Since more than
two thirds of agricultural land (which is 80% of national land area) is
marginal and unsuitable for crop production, livestock husbandry
plays a crucial role in the rural economy of the country (Meissner
et al., 2013a; Scholtz et al., 2013; Tongwane et al., 2019). Similar
to the situation in developed countries, consumption rates of meat
and dairy products in South Africa range from 50 to 90 and
* Corresponding author. Agricultural Research Council - Institute for Soil, Climate
and Water, Private Bag X79, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
E-mail addresses: tongwanem@arc.agric.za, tongwanem@arc.agric.za
(M.I. Tongwane).
global average of total meat consumption per capita was 24.2
during 1964e1966, 36.4 from 1997 to 1999, and is forecast to reach
45.3 g capita
1 day
1 by 2030 (Wanapat et al., 2015). Demands of
livestock products are projected to grow in the future (Rojas-
Downing et al., 2017) and unless production efficiency is
improved, the related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will also
increase. The increase in demand of products will be influenced by
improved living conditions that are anticipated for the low- and
middle-income population groups (Enahoro et al., 2019).
In South Africa, cattle (per head) are among the largest livestock
species contributing to GHG emissions (Department of Environ-
mental Affairs, DEA, 2014; Moeletsi and Tongwane, 2015). A total of
13.6 million beef and 1.4 million dairy cattle were produced in the
country in 2010 (Meissner et al., 2013a). Numbers of commercial
livestock have decreased during the last two decades because

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121931
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
farmers are converting animal husbandry activities to the more
attractive and growing game ranches (DEA, 2014; Hyvarinen et al.,
2019). Livestock management practices vary from commercial,
subsistence and communal to intensive and extensive systems
(Meissner et al., 2013a). Maintenance of appropriate stocking rate
and other rangeland management practices like rotational grazing
in the country need to be promoted in order to keep grasslands
productive and sustainable (Harmse and Gerber, 2018).
Understanding of CH4 as a GHG and its sources is important for
global climate change studies (Chang et al., 2019). It is estimated
that 384 Tg or 60% of global CH4 emissions produced in 2012 were
anthropogenic (Van Dingenen et al., 2018). They increased from
323 Tg in 2005 and there is a projection of further growth of these
emissions into the future (Hoglund-Isaksson, 2012). Agriculture
produced 10%e12% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions in
2010 (Smith et al., 2014). Globally, enteric fermentation is the
largest source of agricultural GHGs and represents between 32%
and 40% of total sectoral emissions (Smith et al., 2014). Emissions
from beef and dairy cattle represent 35% and 30% of all livestock
emissions in the world respectively (Haque, 2018). CH4 from enteric
fermentation accounts for more than two thirds of global agricul-
tural emissions (Paustian et al., 2006). This source is responsible for
93% of total emissions from livestock in South Africa and among the
top five largest producers of GHG emissions in the country after
energy categories (DEA, 2014, 2016). Of these emissions, other
cattle and dairy cows account for 70% and 12% of CH4 respectively.
CH4 from enteric fermentation is the largest source of agricultural
emissions in Africa due to the vast available grazing land on the
continent (Tongwane and Moeletsi, 2018). It is one of the key
category sources of the emissions in South Africa (DEA, 2014).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides
a three tier framework for the calculation of GHG emissions (IPCC
et al., 2006). Tier 1 assumes default emission factors that are av-
erages derived from the literature and is recommended for use in
studies or countries that do not have local emission factors; Tier 2 is
location or country specific and compares gross energy required by
cattle and the actual feed intake provided to the animal; while Tier
3 is based on direct measurements or modelled emissions from the
cattle subcategories (IPCC et al., 2006; Jo et al., 2016; Chang et al.,
2019). Tier 1 provide average values for either the beef and dairy
cattle subcategories for a region (i.e. Africa) despite notable dif-
ferences in factors that influence production of enteric CH4 in
different locations of the region. On the other hand, Tier 2 provides
process based emission factors that depend on the management
systems (Rotz, 2018). Enteric CH4 emission factors for cattle pro-
duced in African environments are limited or nonexistent
(Mapfumo et al., 2018). The few available studies have shown that
the factors are location specific and may significantly vary from
default IPCC averages due to widely different climatic, vegetation
type, management systems and cattle breeds produced (Grobler
et al., 2014; Moeletsi et al., 2017; Goopy et al., 2018; Ndung’u
et al., 2018).
The enteric fermentation CH4 emissions in a recent DEA (2014)
GHG inventory report had been estimated using emission factors
that were determined in South Africa. These emission factors were,
however, derived using an Australian approach based on the similar
climatology of the two countries (Du Toit et al., 2013; DEA, 2014).
These emission factors are difficult to apply in practice since the
cattle classification used is different to what is reported in national
statistics. As a result, the study aims to improve on the emission
factors currently used in the country and to develop a trend of
emissions since 1980. In this study, a Tier 2 approach is utilized to
estimate South African enteric CH4 emission factors for cattle in
accordance with the IPCC guidelines for national GHG inventories
(IPCC et al., 2006).
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
Farming in South Africa consists of a commercial sector (70% of
farmland in the country) that uses technological advances to obtain
optimum production and resource-poor non-commercial farmers
with generally little farm management skills (Linsta €dter et al.,
2014). More than 80% of commercial farmland is rangelands
(Biggs and Scholes, 2002). Commercial cattle production on free-
hold land occupies 52% of agricultural land but over half of the
cattle population are communally produced on 13% of total agri-
cultural land (Palmer and Ainslie, 2005). As a result, high grazing
density and poor land management make communal rangelands
susceptible to land degradation (Linsta €dter et al., 2014; O’Connor,
2015).
Livestock production is a function of climatic conditions,
geographic characteristics of a location and socio-economic profiles
of both the producers and the consumers (Lozano et al., 2017).
Grasslands types in southern Africa are sensitive to rainfall regimes
(Archer et al., 2017). South Africa is semi-arid with 20% of the
country receiving less than 200 mm of annual rainfall, 47%
recording less than 400 mm and only 9% of the country experi-
encing greater than 800 mm (DEA, 2013). Winters and spring are
dry in the summer rainfall region of the country (Tongwane et al.,
2017). The majority of rangelands in South Africa are located in
the semi-arid interior (Palmer and Ainslie, 2005). The elevated
interior has moderate annual rainfall, received mainly in summer,
and it is characterized by sour rangelands, while the low-lying dry
areas mainly in the western part of the country have sweet grasses
(Palmer and Ainslie, 2005; Mapiye et al., 2009). Although the ma-
jority of cattle breeds produced in South Africa are exotic, both beef
and dairy, they have acclimatized to local conditions (Mapfumo
et al., 2018).
Supplementary feeding in extensive production systems is
common particularly in winter when climatic conditions are dry
and natural vegetation is dormant (Foster et al., 2016). Crop resi-
dues from field crops are other forms of supplements used after
every harvests (Tongwane et al., 2016). This semi-arid vegetation
consists of a wide variety of forages of different nutritional quality
(Muller et al., 2019). Subsistence livestock production in South Af-
rica is limited to small marginal lands allocated to former home-
lands during the apartheid era (Samuels et al., 2008). Rangelands in
the subsistence systems are constantly degrading due to poor
management practices compounded with highly variable climatic
conditions (Tefera and Mlambo, 2017). Like in other developing
countries, subsistence systems in South Africa consists of unpro-
ductive cattle that are managed on rangelands characterized by
forages of poor digestibility (Forabosco et al., 2017).
Livestock production in the country varies substantially with
numbers, breeds and species according to type of available grass-
lands, environment and production systems (Bennett and Barrett,
2007; Meissner et al., 2013a). The production is diverse and con-
sists of not less than 30 different breeds (Scholtz et al., 2008; Van
Marle-Ko € ster and Visser, 2018). Bonsmara is the dominant com-
mercial beef breed with 35.8% of registered cattle followed by
beefmaster (14.3%), Nguni (11.3%) and Boran (10.9%) (SA Stud Book,
2016). Subsistence and smallholder farmers who are illiterate and
do not keep management records, produce traditional cattle breeds
such as Nguni (Tada et al., 2013). As a result, it is difficult for farmers
to put together appropriate management strategies for these
breeds (Conan et al., 2018). The Nguni breed is cost-effective, easy
to manage, has a high fertility rate and it is resistant to environ-
mental changes and diseases (Matjuda et al., 2014). Due to these
distinct characteristics, there is growing interest by the commercial
 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
sector to produce this breed (Nowers and Welgemoed, 2010).
Dairy cattle in South Africa comprises of six major breeds
(Hawkins and Stanway, 2013). Holstein occupies the majority of the
dairy stock and other popular breeds are Jersey, Ayrshire, Guernsey,
Swiss and dairy Shorthorn (Hawkins and Stanway, 2013). Dairy
cattle are produced along the eastern and southern coasts with the
latter contributing nearly half of the total milk produced in the
country (Van der Colf et al., 2015a). The region is mostly marginal
but is irrigated to provide high quality pastures that are palatable
and digestible, although they sometimes yield limited metaboliz-
able energy (ME) that affects milk output per cow (Abraha et al.,
2015; Fessehazion et al., 2015; Van der Colf et al., 2015a). Howev-
er, despite the limitations, there is growing production of dairy
cattle on pasture based areas over those on total mixed rations
(TMR) systems (Van der Colf et al., 2015b). Feed supplements in the
form of concentrates and temperate grass species are used during
the shortfalls (Van der Colf et al., 2015b).
2.2. Data
2.2.1. Livestock profiles
Animal profiles by subcategories (Table 1) were obtained from
data collected for DEA (2016). Historical livestock population since
1980 was obtained from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (DAFF, 2019). The data contain total annual populations of
commercial bulls, calves, young and mature castrates, as well as the
annual numbers of commercial cows and heifers for dairy and other
cattle. Using animal profiles obtained in 2015, total numbers of dairy
cattle were obtained followed by numbers of bulls and calves from
the total. Dairy bulls and calves were subtracted from their respec-
tive totals in DAFF (2019) to obtain the remainder for beef cattle. The
ratio of young to mature beef bulls was used to disaggregate the
population of bulls. All castrates were classified to be under beef
production. A linear interpolation of cattle under feedlot was done
using the 2007 and 2015 numbers provided by Lombard et al. (2018).
Total number of dairy and beef cattle was subtracted from total cattle
population in the country to obtain number of subsistence cattle.
This total was further disaggregated using the provided profiles. The
breakdown of beef cattle into commercial and subsistence systems
ranged from 38% to 43% depending on the year. This was close to the
ratio of between 42% and 48% suggested (Meissner et al., 2013a).
TMR, pasture and TMR mixed with pasture systems were dis-
aggregated at the ratio of 30%e20% and 50% respectively (Theron
and Mostert, 2009; DEA, 2016).
2.2.2. Calculation of CH4 emission factors, emissions and intensities
from enteric fermentation
Emission factors for CH4 from enteric fermentation for each
cattle subcategory in South Africa were calculated (Table 2). The
emission factors were subsequently used to calculate CH4 from
enteric fermentation for each cattle subcategory for the period
1980 to 2018. CH4 emission intensities for both dairy (emissions per
Table 1
Composition (%) of cattle subcategories in South Africa.
Cattle sub-category Commercial Subsistence beef
beef dairy
Mature cow 47 59 44
Heifers 16 18 14
Calves 32 22 26
Young bulls 1 1 1 emission factors
Young castrates 1 e 10
Mature castrates 1 e 3 Dairy cattle and subsistence cattle have the highest emission
Mature bulls 2 0 2
3
energy-corrected milk, ECM) and beef (emissions per carcass
weight, CW) were calculated to determine the production effi-
ciency in the country. Socio-economic conditions that have a
possible influence on the emissions were also investigated.
Greenhouse gas emissions from animal enteric fermentation is a
function of the net energy (NE) the animals receive. The energy is
separated into various components: maintenance (NEm), growth
(NEg), activity (NEa), lactation (NEl), work (NEw) and pregnancy
(NEp) (IPCC et al., 2006; Ferrell and Oltjen, 2008). NEa is required by
animals to be able to do their daily work and it varies from smallest
amounts required for feedlot animals to highest values needed by
animals in free ranging systems that travel long distances in search
for food (Opio et al., 2013). NEp estimates must be weighted by the
portion of the mature cow that actually go through gestation in a
year (IPCC et al., 2006). These components are difficult to monitor,
especially in smallholder and subsistence systems like in Africa
where production records are lacking and growth of animals is
affected by varying seasonal availability and quality of feed
throughout the year (Goopy et al., 2018). CH4 emissions from
enteric fermentation depend on gross energy (GE, MJ head
1
day
1) intake that is metabolized (IPCC et al., 2006; Opio et al.,
2013). REG represents overall net energy requirements of the ani-
mal and the characteristics of the available energy in the feeds
(IPCC et al., 2006).
Production characteristics of each subcategory were obtained
from the literature and surveys (Table 3). Weighted milk production
and its fat content profiles for dairy cattle were used in this study
(Theron and Mostert, 2009; Scholtz et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2019).
Feed digestibility depends on the composition and animal type
(IPCC et al., 2006). Average DE of 57% for commercial beef cattle and
50% for subsistence (Snyman and Joubert, 2002; Du Toit et al., 2013;
Opio et al., 2013; DEA, 2016; Goopy et al., 2018; Ndung’u et al.,
2018) were assumed for these systems that feed on natural veld
and crop residues particularly of maize type in winter. Dairy cattle
feeding primarily on kikuyu-ryegrass pastures like in South Africa
have a DE value of 63% (García et al., 2014), dairy cattle produced
under TMR have a value of 76% (Du Toit et al., 2013), while feedlot
cattle have a value of 80% (Du Toit et al., 2013; Du Toit, 2017;
Meissner et al., 2013b). The cattle weights in South Africa are
generally higher than values for sub-Saharan Africa by a factor of
three but similar to developed countries (Opio et al., 2013; Goopy
et al., 2018; Niu et al., 2018).
Methane emission intensities were calculated using national
annual milk production and carcass weights. Volumes of annual
dairy milk were obtained from DAFF (2019) while carcass weights
of beef cattle were obtained from a FAO dataset (http://www.fao.
org/faostat/en/#data/QL). For the emission intensities, CH4 emis-
sions were converted to their carbon dioxide equivalents by using a
100 years global warming potential of 28 (Myhre et al., 2013).
3. Results
The results show that enteric fermentation CH4 emission factors
vary significantly according to cattle type and management system.
This section comprises three subsections: 3.1 presents emission
factors of CH4 from enteric fermentation of cattle produced under
different management systems in South Africa; 3.2 reports on CH4
emissions from enteric fermentation in 2018 and trends of previous
years by cattle type; while 3.3 focuses on CH4 emission intensities.
3.1. Cattle enteric fermentation CH4 emission factors and implied
factors per unit in South Africa (Table 4). Dairy cattle have higher
4 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931

Table 2
Approach used to calculate enteric methane (CH4) emission factors for cattle.

Equation no. Parameter Equation

2   3
1 EF Ym
GE, ,365
6 100 7
EF ¼ 4 5
55:65

2 NEm NEm ¼ CFi ,ðWÞ0:75

3 NEa NEa ¼ Ca ,NEm
4 NEg  0:75
BW
NEg ¼ 22:02, ,WG1:097
C,MW
5 NEl NEl ¼ Milk,ð1:47 þ 0:40Þ,Fat
6 NEw NEwork ¼ 0:10,NEm ,Hours
7 NEp NEp ¼ Cp ,NEm
  
8 REM 25:4
REM ¼ 1:123
ð4:092 ,10
3 ,DE%Þ þ ð1:126 ,10
5 ,ðDE%Þ2 Þ

DE%
  
9 REG 37:4
REG ¼ 1:164
ð5:16 ,10
3 ,DE%Þ þ ð1:308 ,10
5 ,ðDE%Þ2 Þ

DE%
10 GE 2NEm þ NEa þ NEwork þ NEp  NEg þ NEwool 3
þ
6 REM
 
REG 7
GE ¼ 4 5
DE%
100

Ym, is a CH4 conversion factor related to feed digestibility and the value; Cfi is a coefficient that depends on animal category and climate of a location; W is average live weight of
animal, kg; MW is mature live body weight of an adult animal per category, kg; WG is average daily weight gain of the animal in the population, kg day
1; Hours are number of
hours of work per day; Cp is a pregnancy coefficient; NEm net energy required by the animal for maintenance, MJ day
1; NEa is net energy for animal activity, MJ day
1; NEg is
net energy needed for growth, MJ day
1; NEl is net energy for lactation, MJ day
1; Fat is fat content of milk, % by weight; NEp is net energy required for pregnancy, MJ day
1; DE
% is digestible energy obtained from a feed; REM is fraction of net energy available in diet for maintenance to digestible energy consumed; REG is ratio of net energy available
for growth in a diet to digestible energy consumed; GE is the gross energy, MJ day
1; Milk is daily milk produced by lactating cow, kg.

Table 3
Activity data and factors used to calculate CH4 emission factors for enteric fermentation for cattle in South Africa.

Description BWa,b,c,m MWa,b,c,h,i,j WGb,d,g,k BWia,b,e,g BWfa,b,e Milk (kg day
1)a,b,e,g,l,m,n Fat (%)a,b,e,l,m,n Cfif Caf Cf Cpf Ymf

BEEF CATTLE 214

Mature cow > 2 years 475 530 536 5.88 3.50% 0.32 0.17 0.8 0.1 6.5
Heifer 1e2 years 338 400 0.43 0.32 0.17 0.8 6.5
Young bulls 1e2 years 300 426 1.17 0.37 0.17 1.2 6.5
Mature bulls > 2 years 650 700 0.37 0.17 1.2 6.5
Young castrates 1e2 years 250 450 0.59 0.37 0.17 1.0 6.5
Mature castrates > 2 years 500 712 0.37 0.17 1.0 6.5
Calves < 1 years 140 250.0 0.62 213 220 0.32 0.17 1.0 6.5
Feedlot 250 416 1.5 0.32 0 1.0 3
DAIRY CATTLE
Mature cow - pasture > 2 years 475 475 17.75 4.03% 0.39 0.17 0.8 0.1 6.5
Mature cow - mixed > 2 years 590 590 16.26 4.30% 0.39 0.17 0.8 0.1 6.5
Mature cow - TMR > 2 years 650 665 24.51 4.08% 0.39 0.17 0.8 0.1 6.5
Heifer 1e2 years 350 630 0.43 0.32 0.17 0.8 6.5
Young bulls 1e2 years 370 370 0.59 0.37 0.17 1.2 6.5
Mature bulls > 2 years 850 850 0.37 0.17 1.2 6.5
Calves < 1 years 160 160 0.37 160 0.32 0.17 1.0 6.5
SUBSISTENCE CATTLE
Mature cow > 2 years 350 440 5.88 2.50% 0.32 0.36 0.8 0.1 6.5
Heifer 1e2 years 300 440 0.06 0.32 0.36 0.8 6.5
Young bulls 1e2 years 340 390 0.08 0.37 0.36 1.2 6.5
Mature bulls > 2 years 400 510 0.37 0.36 1.2 6.5
Young castrates 1e2 years 300 340 0.08 0.37 0.36 1.0 6.5
Mature castrates > 2 years 400 510 0.37 0.36 1.0 6.5
Calves < 1 years 79 200 0.25 184 0.32 0.36 1.0 6.5
12
.
a
DEA (2014).
b
DEA (2016).
c
Du Toit et al. (2013).
d
Nowers and Welgemoed (2010).
e
Van der Colf et al. (2015a).
f
IPCC et al. (2006).
g
Scholtz and Theunissen (2010).
h
Du Plessis and Hoffman (2004).
i
Banga et al. (2014).
j
ARC (2015).
k
Schoeman (1996).
l
Theron and Mostert (2009).
m
Scholtz et al. (2014).
n
Abel et al. (2019).
 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931 5

emission factors than beef cattle. Emission factors for subsistence
beef cattle are generally higher than those for commercial beef.
Young and mature bulls have highest emission factors for com-
mercial beef cattle while mature female cows have highest factors
for both subsistence beef cattle and dairy cattle. Feedlot cattle and
calves in all categories have the lowest emission factors.
Implied emission factors for commercial beef cattle show higher
variability with time than the trends of the emission factors for
subsistence beef cattle and dairy cattle. The implied emission factor
for commercial beef cattle and dairy cattle are decreasing and
increasing with time respectively. Commercial beef cattle have
lowest implied emission factors with 66 kg CH4 head
1 followed by
subsistence beef cattle (73 kg CH4 head
1) and dairy cattle (74 kg
CH4 head
1). Implied emission factors for each livestock subcategory
indicate different trend patterns. The factors for commercial beef are
decreasing with time but the factors for dairy cattle show a slight
increase. The commercial beef factors indicate a higher decline and
higher variability since the year 2000, suggesting that the efficiency
of beef cattle generally increased during the period. The period from
2012 to 2015 is generally a period of outliers. These can be caused by
several factors including the impact of a severe drought in 2015
which decimated large numbers of cattle in the country.
3.2. Enteric fermentation CH4 emissions and their trends
Livestock production in South Africa emitted a total of 0.87
million tonnes (Mt) of CH4 in 2018. Beef cattle are the main source of
the emissions with 47% from commercial beef and 36% from sub-
sistence beef cattle, with the remaining 17% from dairy cattle. Cows
are the main emitting subcategories with between 48% of the
emissions for commercial beef cattle and three quarters for dairy
cattle in 2018 (Fig. 1). Heifers are the second major source of emis-
sions for subsistence and dairy cattle but calves for commercial beef.
Bulls and castrates are the lowest sources of the emissions due to
their small population. Contributions of dairy heifers to the subcat-
egory total emissions decreased from 17% in 1980 to 13% in 2018
while the similar emissions from cows increased. Contributions of
emissions from commercial beef calves to the total of the subcate-
gory increased from 13% in 1980 to 24% in 2018 while the share of
young castrates also decreased. Profiles of the emissions from sub-
sistence cattle did not change due to possible uncertainties related to
how the composition of the subcategory was established together
with the overall unreliability of the data from this farming system.
Total CH4 emissions from cattle in South Africa are decreasing
with time. They have declined from a near constant of 0.91 Mt that

Table 4
Enteric fermentation CH4 emission factors for different cattle subcategories in South Africa.

This South IPCC et al. (2006) Kenyad,e Europe and North Beninh This study, implied emission factors for South
study Africaa,b Africac,g Americac,f,g Africa

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

COMMERCIAL BEEF 68.47 69.00 69.08 69.25 69.33 67.26 67.54 68.63
CATTLE
Mature cow 77.07 92.06; 31.00 28.3; 50.6 58.80
113.00
Heifer 66.16 75.89 31.00 23; 28.5
Young bulls 99.60 112.63 31.00 30.10;
33.20
Mature bulls 86.70 112.63 31.00 35.90;
45.50
Young castrates 65.53 51.64 31.00 30.10;
33.20
Mature castrates 71.22 89.44 31.00 35.90;
45.50
Calves 48.40 51.58 31.00 15.70;
29.00
Feedlot 24.75 58.87 31.00
DAIRY CATTLE 73.05 72.63 72.60 73.34 73.26 73.92 73.94 74.62
Mature cow - pasture 100.74 127.00 46.00; 77.20 117.00e159.00
Mature cow - mixed 94.32 31.00
Mature cow - TMR 88.22 132.00 31.00
Heifer 55.90 52.63 31.00
e62.63
Young bulls 73.29 31.00
Mature bulls 91.01 31.00
Calves 39.48 20.02 31.00
e21.51
SUBSISTENCE BEEF 73.10 73.10 73.10 73.10 73.10 73.10 73.10 73.10
CATTLE
Mature cow 96.55 73.09 31.00 53.00e57.00 39.50
Heifer 65.36 62.51 31.00
Young bulls 82.32 83.83 31.00 53.00e57.00
Mature bulls 87.51 83.83 31.00 53.00e57.00
Young castrates 76.14 41.58 31.00 53.00e57.00
Mature castrates 87.51 72.56 31.00 53.00e57.00
Calves 33.28 40.92 31.00 53.00e57.00
a
DEA (2014).
b
Du Toit et al. (2013).
c
IPCC et al. (2006).
d
Goopy et al. (2018).
e
Ndung’u et al., 2018.
f
Niu et al. (2018).
g
Wolf et al. (2017).
h
Kouazounde et al. (2015).
6 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
Fig. 1. Contributions of cattle subcategories to CH4 from enteric fermentation in 1980 and 2018 (M, total mixed ration combined with pasture; P, pasture; T, total mixed ration).
was produced between 1996 and 2013 (Table 5). Commercial beef is
historically the largest source subcategory followed by subsistence
beef and dairy. A gradual decrease of commercial beef emissions
since 2000 and subsistence beef from 2012 is the main cause of a
recent decline in total emissions despite slight increases in dairy
and feedlot emissions. Feedlot emissions increased from 0.009 Mt
in 2007 to 0.014 Mt in 2017. The trend of emissions shows a drastic
change in beef production systems from extensive to intensive
management practices.
Commercial beef cows are the largest source of CH4 emissions in
the country. However, a decrease of emissions from this source
since 1999 suggests an uncertain future for the commercial beef
industry and its ultimate emissions. Subsistence beef cows are the
second largest producers of emissions followed by commercial beef
heifers. Dairy cows produced under a combination of TMR and
pasture are the main sources of emissions in this subcategory.
Heifers are the second highest producers of emissions in the dairy
industry. Dynamics of the production of dairy cows may be affected
by a growing shift from TMR to a pasture-based system due to a
better milk yield in the latter (Van der Colf et al., 2015b). Bulls are
smallest sources of cattle emissions due to their small populations.
3.3. Enteric fermentation CH4 emission intensities
The intensity of CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation is
decreasing with time, showing an improvement in production ef-
ficiencies (Fig. 2). The intensity shows the continuing milk pro-
duction per measure of overall management system. It further
indicates that the increasing consumption of dairy products in the
country (Ronquest-Ross et al., 2015) does not necessarily translate
into more emissions. The intensity is approximately 1.1 kg CO2e (kg
ECM)
1 which is generally benchmarked for intensively managed
dairy (Knapp et al., 2014). Similarly, the gradual decline of
emissions per CW of beef cattle (total of both commercial and
subsistence cattle) shows a continuing improvement of the effi-
ciency of the system. The emissions per CW are comparable to
values in Europe (Opio et al., 2013).
4. Discussion
South Africa’s enteric fermentation CH4 emission factors are
higher than the IPCC default emission factors for Africa and largely
resemble the factors for Europe and North America. This section
comprises four subsections: 4.1 compares the emission factors that
are obtained in this study for South Africa with the global factors;
4.2 examines characteristics of enteric fermentation CH4 emissions
from cattle production in South Africa; 4.3 reports on the socio-
economic conditions that influence cattle enteric fermentation
CH4 emissions in South Africa; while 4.4 outlines the limitations of
this study and identifies potential areas of improvements for future
research.
4.1. Comparison of South Africa’s and global enteric fermentation
CH4 emission factors
The emission factors for all the cattle categories are higher than
the IPCC default Tier 1 values for Africa. This shows that default
factors can underestimate emissions from enteric fermentation in
South Africa. Challenges related to the default emission factors
include the fact that they are based on old literature which may not
represent current modern livestock whose management has
evolved with time (Wolf et al., 2017). As a result, studies that are
based on default factors are unreliable and have limited applica-
tions (Ndung’u et al., 2018). This motivates for a periodic revisions
and updates of the factors. The overall emission factors for cattle
obtained in this study are lower than the values reported by DEA
 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931 7

Table 5
Trends of CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation in South Africa by cattle subcategories.

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Total cattle 0.910 0.849 0.954 0.914 0.944 0.924 0.935 0.914

Commercial beef 0.464 0.444 0.503 0.477 0.478 0.454 0.437 0.445
Mature cow 0.232 0.240 0.278 0.267 0.273 0.242 0.230 0.210
Heifers 0.072 0.070 0.078 0.075 0.069 0.061 0.060 0.055
Young bulls 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
Mature bulls 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
Young castrates 0.059 0.048 0.048 0.045 0.043 0.033 0.041 0.052
Mature castrates 0.029 0.019 0.019 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.012 0.053
Calves 0.060 0.055 0.064 0.059 0.060 0.087 0.078 0.058
Subsistence beef 0.335 0.303 0.347 0.329 0.335 0.364 0.368 0.347
Mature cow 0.195 0.176 0.202 0.191 0.194 0.212 0.214 0.201
Heifers 0.042 0.038 0.043 0.041 0.042 0.046 0.046 0.043
Young bulls 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Mature bulls 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.008
Young castrates 0.035 0.032 0.036 0.034 0.035 0.038 0.038 0.036
Mature castrates 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.012
Calves 0.040 0.036 0.041 0.039 0.040 0.043 0.044 0.041
Dairy cattle 0.111 0.102 0.105 0.108 0.131 0.106 0.130 0.123
Mature cow eTMR 0.022 0.020 0.020 0.022 0.026 0.022 0.026 0.026
Mature cow e Pasture 0.017 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.020 0.017 0.020 0.020
Mature cow e Mixed (TMR þ Pasture) 0.039 0.035 0.036 0.039 0.047 0.039 0.047 0.046
Heifers 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.021 0.016 0.019 0.016
Young bulls 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Mature bulls 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Calves 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.013 0.015 0.014

Implied emission factors are not always representative of actual

emission factors. Implied factors are not constant and may regu-
larly change in response to alterations of management systems
especially population composition (Wilkes and Van Dijk). Changes
of implied factors with time are due to the evolution of cattle and
their management. Improvements made to cattle production over
the years had impacts in overall emission factors. There is a global
trend of a growing body mass of dairy cattle but a decreasing body
mass of beef cattle (Wolf et al., 2017).

4.2. Characteristics of cattle enteric fermentation CH4 emissions in

South Africa

Enteric CH4 emissions from cattle calculated in this study are

Fig. 2. Trends of enteric fermentation CH4 emission intensities for cattle in South
Africa.
(2014) and Du Toit et al. (2013) but the factors for subsistence beef
cattle are generally higher than those previously reported. This
study fills in the missing national emission factors for some sub-
categories of dairy cattle.
The emission factors for dairy cattle are lower than the values
for North America and Europe but higher than those for Africa.
Although subsistence beef cattle in South Africa may be supplied
with similar poor quality feed like the rest of Africa, the values
for the former are higher than those for the latter mainly because
of animal weight and the overall gross energy requirements and
feed intake. Subsistence farmers provide their livestock with
poorly digestible feed that results in high CH4 emission factors
(Ndung’u et al., 2018), whereas good quality feed reduces CH4
emissions per unit of product (Knapp et al., 2014). Similarly,
feeding during the dry seasons that are predominant in South
Africa leads to low digestibility and small energy intake (Gaita n
et al., 2016). This variability of feed intake and its quality af-
fects emission factors and annual net emissions and requires
further investigation.
generally lower than the estimates of DEA (2014). This study esti-
mates that dairy cattle and beef cattle produced a total of 0.11 Mt
and 0.71 Mt (0.39 Mt for commercial beef, 0.30 Mt for subsistence
beef and 0.01 Mt for feedlot beef) of CH4 in 2010 respectively while
DEA estimated 0.14 Mt and 0.82 Mt respectively. Emission factors
used in the studies and livestock classifications are the main
sources of the differences. Based on the results of Wolf et al. (2017),
total emissions from enteric fermentation of cattle in South Africa
represent 6.8% of total enteric emissions from all livestock in Africa.
Unlike in DEA (2014), the results presented here show trends of
emissions per livestock subcategory, which is important informa-
tion that is needed for the development of mitigation plans.
Through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, South Africa has committed itself to global efforts to reduce
GHG emissions including those in the Agriculture, Forestry and
Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector and these efforts do not omit
increasing the efficiency of beef and dairy production (South Africa,
2018).
Growth of the country’s feedlot industry is an indicative mea-
sure towards achieving the improved efficiency of beef production
(Scholtz et al., 2013). The growing number of feedlot systems in the
country that slaughter young animals may be indicative that
calving rates are improving, particularly for the subsistence beef
industry. Improved calving rate is generally good for CH4 mitigation
8 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
and water use throughout the livestock production lifecycle
(Meissner et al., 2013b). Furthermore, CH4 inhibitors can be used to
further reduce emissions in intensive production environments like
feedlots from cattle (Stucki and Blignaut, 2018). When continuously
added to animal feed which can be manageable for TMR systems, a
3-nitrooxy-propanol (3-NOP) prevents the completion of meth-
anogenesis in the rumen and reduces formation of CH4 (Van
Wesemael et al., 2019).
4.3. Influence of socio-economic conditions on cattle CH4 emissions
Several socio-economic factors are either directly or indirectly
responsible for the characteristics of CH4 emissions from enteric
fermentation (Moeletsi et al., 2017). Improvement of access to
financial services, availability of information and advisories from
extension services, and productive land are all required for non-
commercial farmers to improve their farming efficiency (Van
Marle-Ko € ster and Visser, 2018) and reduce their carbon footprint.
In the past two decades there have been changes in land use from
rangelands to other forms, particularly in the former homelands,
without improving livestock management (Palmer and Ainslie,
2007), which cannot improve emissions from subsistence sys-
tems. Moreover, the ongoing implementation of government pol-
icies on and conceptualization of land redistribution need to be
accompanied by strong support services to subsistence and
smallholder farmers for them to effectively produce and avoid
fallow and degraded land (Palmer and Ainslie, 2007; Netshipale
et al., 2017). Since the 1970s, the consumption of white meat e
particularly chicken e per capita increased significantly at the
expense of beef (Delport et al., 2017). As a result, the stagnation of
the demand of beef products during the period may have prevented
the overall growth of the industry.
The importance of feedlots has grown to be an outlet of
approximately 75% of beef to the market in the country (Scholtz
et al., 2013, 2014; Lombard et al., 2018). The deregulation of the
beef industry into a market controlled environment in the 1990s
subsequently led to a vertical integration of the industry where the
feedlots not only grew in number and sizes, but they also developed
their own supply chain mechanisms by enacting their abattoirs and
wholesalers (Labuschagne et al., 2010; Ndoro et al., 2015). The
growth of the industry promoted the practice of slaughtering
young animals that provide softer and therefore more marketable
beef with lower cholesterol levels and fat content (Taljaard et al.,
2006; Labuschagne et al., 2010). This change in the production
system of beef brings slight GHG mitigation potential because it
decreases stock population particularly of old cattle and increases
productivity per unit for a short time of finishing the animal for a
market (Scholtz et al., 2013, 2014). However, this trade structure
does not accommodate smallholder and subsistence livestock
farmers whose commercial framing prospects are prevented by
transaction costs, resulting in stagnant enterprises (Ndoro et al.,
2015; Marandure et al., 2016) that will continue to be major sour-
ces of enteric emissions.
Resilience of traditional cattle breeds kept by subsistence
farmers to climate variability and diseases make them assets to
keep. Their versatile functions and liquidity in cultural matters are
crucial to sustaining rural livelihoods (Thornton, 2010). As a result,
mitigation of enteric fermentation CH4 emissions of subsistence
cattle may be built around improving the collection of farm man-
agement data and monitoring systems. These data will form the
basis for among others breed improvement and overall production
efficiency. It is therefore important that assistance provided to
livestock producers, especially subsistence farmers, to address
climate change involves both mitigation and adaptation elements
(Tongwane and Moeletsi, 2018).
4.4. Limitations and implications for future work
This study provided process-based emission factors and dis-
aggregated enteric fermentation CH4 emissions from cattle pro-
duction in South Africa. The approach is limited to a single process
in a chain of sources of GHG emissions from cattle. Future im-
provements need to look into whole-farm emissions that include
quantification of all GHGs in the farm obtained during the pro-
duction of both beef and dairy products. Farm-based approaches
can incorporate some complex details that include cattle breed,
type and composition of feed, animal physiology, environmental
conditions, beef and dairy outputs by cattle breed (Reinecke and
Casey, 2017). Treatment of these processes as a unit provides for
an appropriate mitigation base upon which important production
decisions can be made at a farm level (Del Prado et al., 2013). There
are different modelling approaches that are already available and
can be used to represent the emissions of various farm processes
(Rotz, 2018).
Animal and cattle profiles in this study were limited to annual
averages. However, due to feed variability and climatic conditions
between summer and winter, animal weights and the associated
quantity and constituents of animal products may change (Nantapo
and Muchenje, 2013). These varying conditions can consequently
cause seasonal changes of emission factors and the ultimate enteric
fermentation CH4 emissions. As a result of seasonal changes in
pasture quality and forage availability for the cattle production
systems that do not have supplementary feeding, dry matter intake
may vary leading to inconsistent emission factors (Van Wyngaard
et al., 2018). It is therefore important for future studies to
consider calculating the emissions seasonally so that all these
heterogeneities can be incorporated.
The data used in this study did not provide for the establishment
of the credible uncertainty levels. The data did not have margins of
error which combined, could gauge the overall uncertainties of the
emission factors and the overall emissions. Direct measurements of
the emission factors from each cattle category that have uncer-
tainty estimates associated with them could be considered in the
future to improve on these limitations. But since Tier 2 is based on
country specific data, uncertainties associated with this approach
are less than those obtained when Tier 1 is used (IPCC et al., 2006).
5. Conclusions
Cattle production is a significant source of methane (CH4) from
enteric fermentation. Compared to similar subcategories, dairy
cattle generally have highest emission factors followed by subsis-
tence cattle and commercial beef cattle. The emission factors for
commercial beef and dairy cattle are generally higher than the
values for Africa but are similar to those in Europe and North
America. Commercial beef cattle were a source to 47% of the 0.87
million tonnes (Mt) of CH4 emissions in 2018. Subsistence beef
cattle and dairy cattle produced 36% and 17% of the total emissions
respectively. Cows and heifers are major sources of emissions in
each cattle subcategory. Total emissions for commercial and sub-
sistence beef cattle are decreasing with time due to a decrease in
population numbers and compositions. Emissions from cows
showed the biggest drop between 2000 and 2018.
Trends of emission intensities and implied emission factors
show improvements of production efficiencies in both the dairy
and beef industries. The trends suggest that the emission factors
may need to be regularly reviewed because of the continuous im-
provements made to the livestock production systems. Despite
their temporal variabilities, particularly beef, the emissions per
milk produced in the dairy cattle farming and emissions per animal
carcass in the beef industry are decreasing.
 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mphethe I. Tongwane: Methodology, Validation, Formal anal-
ysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization. Mokhele E. Moeletsi: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft.
Acknowledgements
The editorial inputs of Dr Thomas Fyfield are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Abel, S., Muller, C.J.C., Sasanti, B., 2019. Effect of alternating total mixed ration and
pasture feeding on the fatty acid content and health indices of Jersey and
Fleckvieh x Jersey milk. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 49 (3), 432e440.
Abraha, A.B., Truter, W.F., Annandale, J.G., Fessehazion, M.K., 2015. Forage yield and
quality response of annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) to different water and
nitrogen levels. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 32 (2), 125e131.
ARC, 2015. Annual Beef Bulletin e Jaarlikse Vleisbees Bulletin. Agricultural Research
Council e Animal production Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Archer, S.R., Andersen, E.M., Predick, K.I., Schwinning, S., Steidl, R.J., Woods, S.R.,
2017. Woody plant encroachment: causes and consequences. In: Rangeland
Systems - Processes, Management and Challenges. Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-
46709-2, pp. 25e84.
Banga, C.B., Neser, F.W.C., Garrick, D.J., 2014. Breeding objectives for Holstein cattle
in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44 (3), 199e214.
Bennett, J., Barrett, H., 2007. Rangeland as a common property resource: contrasting
insights from communal areas of central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.
Hum. Ecol. 35 (1), 97e112.
Biggs, R., Scholes, R.J., 2002. Land-cover changes in South Africa 1911-1993. South
Afr. J. Sci. 98, 420e424.
Chang, J., Peng, S., Ciais, P., Saunois, M., Dangal, S.R., Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Tian, H.,
Bousquet, P., 2019. Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic rumi-
nants and their d 13 CCH4 source signature. Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 1e14.
Conan, A., Meyer, A., Reininghaus, B., Van Rooyen, J., Knobel, D.L., 2018. A live
weight-heart girth relationship in Nguni-type and Brahman-type cattle as a
tool for small-scale farmers. Appl. Anim. Husb. Rural Dev. 11 (1), 46e52.
DAFF, 2019. Abstract of Agricultural Statistics 2019. Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, Pretoria, South Africa.
DEA, 2013. Long Term Adaptation Scenarios e Agriculture and Forestry. Department
of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.
DEA, 2014. GHG Inventory for South Africa: 2000-2010. Department of Environ-
mental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.
DEA, 2016. Strategic Climate Policy Fund e Improvement of the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory for the Agricultural Sector. Department of Environmental
Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.
Del Prado, A., Crosson, P., Olesen, J.E., Rotz, C.A., 2013. Whole-farm models to
quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate
change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based
farming systems. Animal 7 (s2), 373e385.
Delport, M., Louw, M., Davids, T., Vermeulen, H., Meyer, F., 2017. Evaluating the
demand for meat in South Africa: an econometric estimation of short term
demand elasticities. Agrekon 56 (1), 13e27.
Du Plessis, I., Hoffman, L.C., 2004. Effect of chronological age of beef steers of
different maturity types on their growth and carcass characteristics when
finished on natural pastures in the arid sub-tropics of South Africa. S. Afr. J.
Anim. Sci. 34 (1), 1e12.
Du Toit, C.J.L., Meissner, H.H., Van Niekerk, W.A., 2013. Direct methane and nitrous
oxide emissions of South African dairy and beef cattle. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 (3),
320e339.
Du Toit, C.J.L., 2017. Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions from Ruminants in
Sub-tropical Production Systems. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
PhD Thesis.
Enahoro, D., Mason-D’Croz, D., Mul, M., Rich, K.M., Robinson, T.P., Thornton, P.,
Staal, S.S., 2019. Supporting sustainable expansion of livestock production in
South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: scenario analysis of investment options.
Global Food Secur. 20, 114e121.
Ferrell, C.L., Oltjen, J.W., 2008. ASAS Centennial Paper: net energy systems for beef
cattle - concepts, application, and future models. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (10),
2779e2794.
Fessehazion, M.K., Annandale, J.G., Everson, C.S., Stirzaker, R.J., Van der Laan, M.,
9
Truter, W.F., Abraha, A.B., 2015. Performance of simple irrigation scheduling
calendars based on average weather data for annual ryegrass. Afr. J. Range
Forage Sci. 32 (2), 221e228.
Forabosco, F., Chitchyan, Z., Mantovani, R., 2017. Methane, nitrous oxide emissions
and mitigation strategies for livestock in developing countries: a review. S. Afr.
J. Anim. Sci. 47 (3), 268e280.
Foster, L.A., Fourie, P.J., Neser, F.W.C., 2016. A survey of lick supplementation and
management practices of commercial beef farmers in the Zastron District. S. Afr.
J. Agric. Ext. 44 (2), 158e166.
Gaitan, L., La€derach, P., Graefe, S., Rao, I., Van der Hoek, R., 2016. Climate-smart
livestock systems: an assessment of carbon stocks and GHG emissions in
Nicaragua. PloS One 11 (12), e0167949.
García, S.C., Islam, M.R., Clark, C.E.F., Martin, P.M., 2014. Kikuyu-based pasture for
dairy production: a review. Crop Pasture Sci. 65 (8), 787e797.
Goopy, J.P., Onyango, A.A., Dickhoefer, U., Butterbach-Bahl, K., 2018. A new approach
for improving emission factors for enteric methane emissions of cattle in
smallholder systems of East Africa - results for Nyando, Western Kenya. Agric.
Syst. 161, 72e80.
Grobler, S.M., Scholtz, M.M., Van Rooyan, H., Mpayipheli, M., Neser, F.W.C., 2014.
Methane production in different breeds, grazing different pastures or fed a total
mixed ration, as measured by a Laser Methane Detector. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44
(5), 12e16.
Haque, M.N., 2018. Dietary manipulation: a sustainable way to mitigate methane
emissions from ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 60 (15).
Harmse, C.J., Gerber, H.J., 2018. Effect of stocking density on vegetation and animal
performance within the semi-arid shrublands of the Karoo, South Africa. Afr. J.
Range Forage Sci. 35 (1), 13e22.
Hawkins, H.-J., Stanway, R., 2013. The Sustainable Dairy Handbook: for South Af-
rican Dairy Farmers. Nestle  Printers, Bryanston, South Africa, ISBN 978-0-620-
59372-4.
Hoglund-Isaksson, L., 2012. Global anthropogenic methane emissions 2005e2030:
technical mitigation potentials and costs. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12 (19),
9079e9096.
Hyvarinen, O., Timm Hoffman, M., Reynolds, C., 2019. Vegetation dynamics in the
face of a major land-use change: a 30-year case study from semi-arid South
Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 36 (3), 141e150.
IPCC, 2006. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), IPCC
2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Japan.
Jo, N., Kim, J., Seo, S., 2016. Comparison of models for estimating methane emission
factor for enteric fermentation of growing-finishing Hanwoo steers. Spring-
erPlus 5 (1212).
Knapp, J.R., Laur, G.L., Vadas, P.A., Weiss, W.P., Tricarico, J.M., 2014. Invited review:
enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and
impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 97 (6), 3231e3261.
Kouazounde, J.B., Gbenou, J.D., Babatounde, S., Srivastava, N., Eggleston, S.H.,
Antwi, C., Baah, J., McAllister, T.A., 2015. Development of methane emission
factors for enteric fermentation in cattle from Benin using IPCC Tier 2 meth-
odology. Animals 9 (3), 526e533.
Labuschagne, A., Louw, A., Ndanga, L.Z., 2010. A consumer-oriented study of the
South African beef value chain. In: Contributed Paper Presented at the Joint 3rd
African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural
Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference. Cape Town, South
Africa, September 19-23, 2010.
Linsta€dter, A., Schellberg, J., Brüser, K., García, C.A.M., Oomen, R.J., Du Preez, C.C.,
Ruppert, J.C., Ewert, F., 2014. Are there consistent grazing indicators in dry-
lands? Testing plant functional types of various complexity in South Africa’s
grassland and savanna biomes. PLoS One 9 (8), e104672.
Lombard, W.A., Mare , F.A., Jordaan, H., 2018. The influence of animal traits on
feedlot profitability of Santa Gertrudis cattle in South Africa. Agrekon 57 (2),
101e107.
Lozano, M.G., Yadira, P.G., Arellano, K.A.A., Balagurusamy, N., 2017. Livestock
Methane Emission: Microbial Ecology and Mitigation Strategies. Livestock Sci-
ence, pp. 51e71. https://doi.org/10.5772/65859 (Chapter 4).
Mapfumo, L., Grobler, S.M., Mupangwa, J.F., Scholtz, M.M., Muchenje, V., 2018.
Enteric methane output from selected herds of beef cattle raised under
extensive arid rangelands. Pastoralism 8 (15).
Mapiye, C., Chimonyo, M., Dzama, K., Raats, J.G., Mapekula, M., 2009. Opportunities
for improving Nguni cattle production in the smallholder farming systems of
South Africa. Livest. Sci. 124 (1e3), 196e204.
Marandure, T., Mapiye, C., Makombe, G., Nengovhela, B., Strydom, P., Muchenje, V.,
Dzama, K., 2016. Determinants and opportunities for commercial marketing of
beef cattle raised on communally owned natural pastures in South Africa. Afr. J.
Range Forage Sci. 33 (3), 199e206.
Matjuda, L.E., MacNeil, M.D., Maiwashe, A., Leesburg, V.R., Malatje, M., 2014. Index-
in-retrospect and breeding objectives characterizing genetic improvement
programmes for South African Nguni cattle. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44 (2), 161e172.
Meissner, H.H., Scholtz, M.M., Palmer, A.R., 2013a. Sustainability of the South African
livestock sector towards 2050, Part 1: worth and impact of the sector. S. Afr. J.
Anim. Sci. 43 (3), 282e297.
Meissner, H.H., Scholtz, M.M., Engelbrecht, F.A., 2013b. Sustainability of the South
African livestock sector towards 2050, Part 2: challenges, changes and required
implementations. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 (3), 289e319.
Moeletsi, M., Tongwane, M., 2015. 2004 methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
manure management in South Africa. Animals 5 (2), 193e205.
10 M.I. Tongwane, M.E. Moeletsi / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121931
Moeletsi, M., Tongwane, M., Tsubo, M., 2017. Enteric methane emissions estimate
for livestock in South Africa for 1990e2014. Atmosphere 8 (5), 69.
Muller, F.L., Igshaan Samuels, M., Cupido, C.F., Swarts, M.B., Amary, N.M., Hattas, D.,
Morris, C., Cyster, L.F., Stephen Boatwright, J., 2019. The impacts of season and
livestock management strategy on the quality of diets selected by goats and
sheep in the semi-arid rangelands of Namaqualand, South Africa. Afr. J. Range
Forage Sci. 36 (2), 105e114.
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bre on, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,
Takemura, T., Zhang, H., 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In:
Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: the
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Nantapo, C.T.W., Muchenje, V., 2013. Winter and spring variation in daily milk yield
and mineral composition of Jersey, Friesian cows and their crosses under a
pasture-based dairy system. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 (5), S17eS21.
Ndoro, J.T., Mudhara, M., Chimony, M., 2015. Farmers’ choice of cattle marketing
channels under transaction cost in rural South Africa: a multinomial logit
model. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 32 (4), 243e252.
Ndung’u, P.W., Bebe, B.O., Ondiek, J.O., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Merbold, L., Goopy, J.P.,
2018. Improved region-specific emission factors for enteric methane emissions
from cattle in smallholder mixed crop: livestock systems of Nandi County,
Kenya. Anim. Prod. Sci. 59 (6), 1136e1146.
Netshipale, A.J., Oosting, S.J., Raidimi, E.N., Mashiloane, M.L., De Boer, I.J., 2017. Land
reform in South Africa: beneficiary participation and impact on land use in the
Waterberg District. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 83, 57e66.
Niu, M., Kebreab, E., Hristov, A.N., Oh, J., Arndt, C., Bannink, A., Bayat, A.R., Brito, A.F.,
Boland, T., Casper, D., Crompton, L.A., 2018. Prediction of enteric methane
production, yield, and intensity in dairy cattle using an intercontinental data-
base. Global Change Biol. 24 (8), 3368e3389.
Nowers, C.B., Welgemoed, J., 2010. The economic viability of finishing Nguni
weaners on natural veld and permanent pastures. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 40 (5),
422e423.
O’Connor, T.G., 2015. Long-term response of an herbaceous sward to reduced
grazing pressure and rainfall variability in a semi-arid South African Savanna.
Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 32 (4), 261e270.
Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T.,
Henderson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant
Supply Chains e A Global Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Palmer, A.R., Ainslie, A.M., 2005. Chapter 3: grasslands of South Africa. Grassl. World
34, 77e120.
Palmer, A.R., Ainslie, A., 2007. Using rain-use efficiency to explore livestock pro-
duction trends in rangelands in the Transkei, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage
Sci. 24 (1), 43e49.
Paustian, K., Antle, J.M., Sheehan, J., Paul, E.A., 2006. Agriculture’s Role in Green-
house Gas Mitigation, Pew Center on Global Climate Change available at: http://
www.c2es.org/docUploads/Agriculture%27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%
20Mitigation.pdf. Last viewed 05/10/2016.
Reinecke, R., Casey, N.H., 2017. A whole farm model for quantifying total greenhouse
gas emissions on South African dairy farms. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 47 (6), 883e894.
Rojas-Downing, M.M., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Harrigan, T., Woznicki, S.A., 2017. Climate
change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag. 16,
145e163.
Ronquest-Ross, L.C., Vink, N., Sigge, G.O., 2015. Food consumption changes in South
Africa since 1994. South Afr. J. Sci. 111 (9e10), 1e12.
Rotz, C.A., 2018. Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci.
101 (7), 6675e6690.
SA Stud Book, 2016. SA Stud Book Annual Report 2016. Pretoria, South Africa.
Samuels, M.I., Allsopp, N., Hoffman, T., 2008. Mobility patterns of livestock keepers
in semi-arid communal rangelands of Namaqualand, South Africa. Nomadic
Peoples 12 (1), 123e148.
Schoeman, S.J., 1996. Characterization of beef cattle breeds by virtue of their per-
formances in the national beef cattle performance and progeny testing scheme.
S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 26 (1), 15e19.
Scholtz, M.M., Bester, J., Mamabolo, J.M., Ramsay, K.A., 2008. Results of the national
cattle survey undertaken in South Africa, with emphasis on beef. Applied Anim.
Husb. Rural Dev. 1, 1e9.
Scholtz, M.M., Theunissen, A., 2010. The use of indigenous cattle in terminal cross-
breeding to improve beef cattle production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Animal Ge-
netic Resources/Resources ge ne
tiques animales/Recursos gene ticos animales
46, 33e39.
Scholtz, M.M., Van Ryssen, J.V., Meissner, H.H., Laker, M.C., 2013. A South African
perspective on livestock production in relation to greenhouse gases and water
usage. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 (3), 247e254.
Scholtz, M.M., Du Toit, J., Neser, F.W.C., 2014. Antagonism in the carbon footprint
between beef and dairy production systems. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44 (5), 17e20.
Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A.,
Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C.,
Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F.,
Tubiello, F., 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Pichs-
Madruga, O.R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I.,
Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlo €mer, S., von
Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Snyman, L.D., Joubert, H.W., 2002. The chemical composition and in vitro dry matter
digestibility of untreated and ammoniated crop residues. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 32
(2), 83e87.
South Africa, 2018. South Africa’s Low-emission Development Strategy 2050. Pre-
toria, South Africa. Accessed 2 August 2019. www.environment.gov.za.
Stucki, M., Blignaut, A., 2018. Greening agri-food value chains in emerging econo-
mies. In: Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products And Policies e from Science
To Innovation (109-114). Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-66981-6.
Tada, O., Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., 2013. Preferential traits for breeding Nguni cattle
in low-input in-situ conservation production systems. SpringerPlus 2, 195.
Taljaard, P.R., Jooste, A., Asfaha, T.A., 2006. Towards a broader understanding of
South African consumer spending on meat. Agrekon 45 (2), 214e224.
Tefera, S., Mlambo, V., 2017. Macro and trace elements of 26 browse species growing
in semi-arid grazing lands of Eastern Cape, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci.
34 (4), 209e217.
Thornton, P.K., 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Phil.
Trans. Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 2853e2867.
Theron, H.E., Mostert, B.E., 2009. Production and breeding performance of South
African dairy herds. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 39 (1), 206e210.
Tongwane, M., Mdlambuzi, T., Moeletsi, M., Tsubo, M., Mliswa, V., Grootboom, L.,
2016. Greenhouse gas emissions from different crop production and manage-
ment practices in South Africa. Environ. Dev. 19, 23e35.
Tongwane, M.I., Savage, M.J., Tsubo, M., Moeletsi, M.E., 2017. Seasonal variation of
reference evapotranspiration and Priestley-Taylor coefficient in the eastern Free
State, South Africa. Agric. Water Manag. 187, 122e130.
Tongwane, M.I., Moeletsi, M.E., 2018. A review of greenhouse gas emissions from
the agriculture sector in Africa. Agric. Syst. 166, 124e134.
Tongwane, M., Malaka, S., Moeletsi, M., 2019. Agricultural cropping systems in
South Africa and their greenhouse gas emissions: a review. In: Shurpali, N.,
Agarwal, A., Srivastava, V. (Eds.), Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy, Environ-
ment, and Sustainability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
13-3272-2_5.
Van der Colf, J., Botha, P.R., Meeske, R., Truter, W.F., 2015a. Seasonal dry matter
production, botanical composition and forage quality of kikuyu over-sown with
annual or perennial ryegrass. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 32 (2), 133e1142.
Van der Colf, J., Botha, P.R., Meeske, R., Truter, W.F., 2015b. Grazing capacity, milk
production and milk composition of kikuyu over-sown with annual or peren-
nial ryegrass. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 32 (2), 143e151.
Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., Dentener, F., 2018. Global
Trends of Methane Emissions and Their Impacts on Ozone Concentrations. JRC
Science for Policy Report, ISBN 978-92-79-96550-0.
Van Marle-Ko € ster, E., Visser, C., 2018. Genetic improvement in South African live-
stock: can genomics bridge the gap between the developed and developing
sectors? Front. Genet. 9 (331).
Van Wesemael, D., Vandaele, L., Ampe, B., Cattrysse, H., Duval, S., Kindermann, M.,
Fievez, V., De Campeneere, S., Peiren, N., 2019. Reducing enteric methane
emissions from dairy cattle: two ways to supplement 3-nitrooxypropanol.
J. Dairy Sci. 102 (2), 1780e1787.
Van Wyngaard, J.D., Meeske, R., Erasmus, L.J., 2018. Effect of concentrate level on
enteric methane emissions, production performance, and rumen fermentation
of Jersey cows grazing kikuyu-dominant pasture during summer. J. Dairy Sci.
101 (11), 9954e9966.
Wanapat, M., Cherdthong, A., Phesatcha, K., Kang, S., 2015. Dietary sources and their
effects on animal production and environmental sustainability. Anim. Nutr. 1
(3), 96e103.
Wilkes, A., Van Dijk, S., Tier 2 Inventory Approaches in the Livestock Sector: a
Collection of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Inventory Practices. UNIQUE,
Forestry and Land Use. Freiburg, Deutschland.
Wolf, J., Asrar, G.R., West, T.O., 2017. Revised methane emissions factors and
spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock. Carbon Bal.
Manag. 12 (1), 16.