MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY, NUTRITION AND BIO-

ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOSYSTEMS

ENGINEERNG

METHANE EMISSIONS FROM THE ZERO GRAZING SYSTEM FOR

CATTLE; A CASE STUDY IN KAMPALA, UGANDA

BY

AKAO RACHEAL

REG NO. 13/U/66; STUDENT NO. 213000443

A RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

1
 DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a Degree in any other University.

Signature:……………………. Date…………………………..

Akao Racheal

13/U/66.

This thesis has been submitted for review with our approval as University supervisors.

1. Signature: ……………………. Date…………………………

Name: Dr. Allan Komakech Department: Agricultural and Bio Systems Engineering
Makerere University

2
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to the Lord almighty that kept me alive and healthy throughout my
Bachelor’s degree programme and to my mother who has single handedly brought me this far
with my education.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Allan Komakech who supervised this work through out
the research study. I appreciate all the time he set aside to guide and support me. I also want to
appreciate Dr. J. Wanyama and the head of the department for agricultural engineering, Professor
N. Banadda for their guidance and invaluable inputs through out our final year.

I wish to thank the soil science lab technician at the college, Mr. M. Bonny for his assistance
during data collection and Mr. R. Mutebi for his assistance during analysis of the gases.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................... 2

DEDICATION............................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 8

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 11

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 12

1.3 JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 13

1.4 OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 13

MAIN OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................. 13

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................... 13

1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY................................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 14

2.1 GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................. 14

2.2 LIVESTOCK REARING IN KAMPALA.............................................................................. 14

2.3 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION ........................................ 15

2.4 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT .......................................... 16

2.5 IPCC GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................... 16

2.6 MEASUREMENT OF METHANE EMISSION RATES ...................................................... 17

2.7 ESTIMATION OF VENTILATION RATE ........................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 19

5
3.1 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 19

3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL ..................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................... 27

4.1 MEASUREMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................ 27

4.2 CALCULATION RESULTS .................................................................................................. 28

4.3 MEASUREMENT VERSUS ESTIMATION ........................................................................ 30

4.4 EXTRAPOLATION FOR KAMPALA .................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 5.0 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ........................................ 32

5.1 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 34

6
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Data required for calculations ...................................................................................... 12

Table 3.3: Coefficient that corresponds to the cattle’s feeding situation ...................................... 20

Table 3.4: Digestibility for different types of feed ....................................................................... 15

Table 3.5: Methane conversion factor for different cattle categories ........................................... 15

Table 4.1: Gas meter display of the gas concentrations................................................................ 16

Table 4.2: Enteric fermentation emission factors ......................................................................... 18

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Map of kampala showing the five divisions of kampala city and the study area ....... 19

Figure 3.2: The farm (a), non-lactating cow (b) ........................................................................... 20

Figure 3.3:Enclosing the Kraal with polythene ............................................................................ 21

Figure 3.4: Collecting air samples with gas syringes ................................................................... 21

8
9
 ABSTRACT
Livestock contribute significantly to the total global greenhouse gases which have been linked to
the climatic change incidences being experienced around the world today. In Uganda the livestock
numbers are increasing with the growing population and demand for food yet the exact
contribution of animal husbandry to GHG release is not known. Estimates have been made using
IPCC methodology under a generalised format for Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and developing
countries which over estimate the country’s emission factors. In addition actual farm level
measurement has not been done in the meager studies that have been conducted in he country so
far. In this study, methane emissions from enteric fermentation and manue management were both
measured and estimated from a diary cattle zero grazing farm in Rubaga. For enteric fermentation,
air samples from the kraal were collected with polythene bags and gas syringes and for manure
mangement, manure samples were tied in polythene bags and the gas that collected was drawn out
with syringes. The gas samples were analysed using a gas metre in the lab. The total enteric
methane emission rate obtained from the farm in this study was 86.368Kg CH4 yr-1 and the methane
emission rate from manure was 44.106Kg CH4 yr-1. The emission values for the farm obtained
from using Tier 2 IPCC guidelines were 240.60Kg CH4 yr-1 for enteric fermentation and those
from manure management were 34.764Kg CH4 yr-1. The calculated emission rate for enteric
fermentation was atleast more than twice (×2.78) that obtained by farm level measurement. This
means the methane emissions rate estimated by IPCC methodology for the country are higher than
the actual rate by a factor of 2.78. The reverse was observed for manure emissions, the measured
rate was more than that calculated by a factor of 1.27 which contradicted recent studies that found
that the IPCC estimates are invariably higher by a factor of more than two. The total enteric
methane emission rate estimated for Kampala was low (43,558.26 Kg CH4 yr-1 ) which might have
been because fewer animals are kept in the city and under the zero grazing system compared to
other parts of the country and under the free range system. There were uncertainities associated
with collecting and analysing the gases in the lab and also with estimating ventialation rate using
only wind speed which could be reduced with the use of on-site gas analysers. Long term
measurements should also be considered to cater for seasonal variations in these methane
emissions.

10
 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In Uganda about 4.5 million households (70.8%) rear at least one kind of livestock or poultry
(MAAIF and UBOS, 2009) with the estimated number of households owning cattle being 1.7
million. Cattle in Uganda just like in many sub-Sahara African countries, is managed under three
main systems; zero grazing, paddocking and free range (FAO, 2011). In zero grazing, the animals
stay in one place only and all the feed is brought to them; in free range, the animals are left to
move and graze freely. Paddocking is a form of free range where the grazing land is divided into
partitions (paddocks) and the animals are rotated within these paddocks periodically allowing time
for pasture to re-grow (FAO, 2011).

In Uganda, Livestock is mainly used as a source of food security and nutritional quality, while
providing both market and non-market benefits (FAO, 2005). In addition they provide fertilizers
to crop agriculture and are a source of animal draught power (Muhereza et al., 2014). Regardless
of the many advantages associated with livestock rearing, there are prominent disadvantages too,
some of which include poor management of manure that causes pollution of water sources
(Komakech et al., 2015; Komakech et al., 2014; Banadda et al., 2009), spread of zoonotic diseases
(Albihn and Vinnerås, 2007), and emission of green house gases (Komakech et al., 2016).

Livestock produce greenhouse gases (GHG) in the form of methane from enteric fermentation
(IPCC, 2006), nitrous oxide from use of nitrogenous fertilisers used mainly in production of animal
feed, methane and Nitrous oxide from manure management and deposition of animal manures on
pastures (Komakech et al., 2015). All these have contributed to climate change related incidences
being experienced in the world. A global increase in the incidence of extreme weather events has
led to a growing awareness of the potential contribution of anthropomorphic sources of greenhouse
gases (GHG), including agriculture, to climate change.

11
 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Uganda has over the past 10 years, experienced consistent changes in climate, more specifically
gradual changes of rainfall patterns mainly due to the Greenhouse effect (Stark, 2011). These
climatic changes have adverse effects on agriculture,food security and health sectors in the country
(Kikoyo and Nobert, 2016). For any prospective mitigation measures, the country needs to start
by measuring and quantifying its contribution of the green house gas emissions.

Animal agriculture is responsible for 8–11% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC,
2006) and, on the basis of lifecycle analysis, the contribution of livestock is up to 18% of global
emissions. The IPCC published guidelines for calculating national GHG inventories
(IPCC, 1997a). These were subsequently updated in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2013. These guidelines
include models for estimatimating GHG emissions from animal agriculture at national level. In the
case of Uganda, the exact contribution of animal husbandry to GHG release is not known.

Methane (CH4) emissions from the free range system of cattle management in Nakasongola district
were investigated in 2015 (Faizal 2016). The study used the IPCC guidelines to estimate methane
emissions without farm level measurement and did not cover emsissions from the zero grazing
system, the other management system that is representative of a significant number of cattle mostly
reared in the urban and semi urban areas of the country.

The databases available give cattle emissions estimates for the country under a generalised format,
that is, for developing countries and regional estimates for Africa and sub-saharan Africa.There is
a relatively large degree of error from these estimations (Lokupitiya, 2016), because factors that
determine the amount Methane emissions such as feed characteristics, cattle species,
temperature,manure mangement etc.vary for all the countries and regions within these countries.

12
 1.3 JUSTIFICATION
Uganda, is one of the countries that has contributed least to the total global green house gas
emissions, regardless, livestock contribute considerably to the world’s GHG emissions and their
numbers in country are increasing with the growing human population and demand for food
(MAAIF and UBOS, 2009). For any prospective abatement of gas emissions from livestock
production, there is need to have an updated inventory for the greenhouse gases produced. This
study seeks to contribute to this effect by measuring methane emissions from the zero grazing
system in Kampala.

A comparison between the emissions obtained from the study and those from conventional
databases will establish a factor of error that can be used to correct values from the latter.

1.4 OBJECTIVES

MAIN OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to determine methane emissions from the zero grazing system
of cattle in Kampala.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of this study are:

 To measure and estimate methane emissions from cattle enteric fermentation and manure
management.

 To compare methane emission values obtained from measurement with those from
estimation and establish a factor of error.

1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY

Although nitrous oxide is the more potent greenhouse gas from cattle, this study only looked at
methane because of the difficulty associated with obtaining a gas meter that can measure nitrous
oxide. Nitrous oxide being an intermediate compound is difficult to measure especially in low
concentrations (Jungbluth et al., 2001). Very few simple gas meters are calibrated to measure
nitrous oxide.

13
 CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Agriculture is a source of three primary green house gases; carbondioxide, methane and Nitrous
oxide (Crosson et al., 2011). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere and absorb long
wavelength radiation from the earth and thereby increasing the temperatures (Ramanathan and
Feng, 2009). They vary in how intensely they trap solar heat on earth (Chandler, 2017).
Carbondioxide is the most prevalent but only has a global-warming potential of 1 per molecule
over 100 years (Ritter, 2009). It currently produces the greatest impact on the Earth’s rapidly
changing climate (Chandler,2017). Over the same time scale of 100 years, methane’s global
warming potential is 25 times that of carbondioxide while nitrous oxide has a potential of 298
times (Ritter, 2009; McAllister, 2011; Chandler 2017).

Kikoyo and Nobert, 2016 estimated the effects of global warming in Uganda. This study found
that temperatures have increased by up to 10C for the most part of the country since the 1970s,
with rates of warming around 0.30C per decade across the country.

2.2 LIVESTOCK REARING IN KAMPALA

A study conducted in 2014 to map animal agriculture in Kampala reported that poultry was the
dominant animal category kept in the city with 257,454 animals, followed by pigs at 9,007 animals,
then cattle with 3,849, followed by goats with 3,076 and the least were sheep with only 212 animals
(Komakeck et al., 2014). Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector closely
relate to ruminant numbers particularly cattle numbers (O’Mara, 2011) . This might be because
cattle, being the domimant ruminant population , produce a lot of methane emissions form enteric
fermentation. Poultry and pigs, despite their numbers being considerably larger than cattle in the
city, are monogastric animals and therefore don’t carry out enteric fermentation except pigs to a
small extent in their intestines (Ngwabie, 2014). They contribute manure related emissions.
Methane emissions from manure are invariably much lower than enteric methane essions(Jarvis et
al 1995; Mazzetto et al, 2014)

This study focused on cattle because it is generally accepted that they produce the most greenhouse
gases from the livestock sector. The largest percentage of catte reared in Kampala are diary cows

14
which are kept because they continuously generate income and food for the househods (Komakech
et al , 2014). Most of the diary cattle are reared on small holder units, keeping about 10 animals or
less (Mugisha et al , 2014).

The local cattle breeds kept in Kampala are predominantly communally grazed (free range)
although in some instances, they are tethered on pasture. The exotic cattle breeds are mainly kept
under zero grazing, although a few are also tethered on pasture (Komakech et al , 2014) . Kiggundu
et al (2014) reported that zero grazing farms fed diary cattle on elephant grass, forage legumes and
fodder trees . The farms also augment these with crop residues and domestic wastes such as banana
and sweet potato peels and a few also apply brewery watse (Kiggundu et al.,2014; Komakech et
al., 2014).

At least 60% of animal manure generated from cattle in the city is discarded in some way, about
32% is used as fertiliser on crop fields (Muhereza et al., 2014; Komakeck et al., 2014). A few
farmers sell off the manure and some set up biogas plants and use the dung to produce fuel
(Komakech et al., 2014).

Zero grazing is on the increase in and around urban areas in Uganda where land is scarce but there
is a good market for milk and beef products (Mwebaze 1999). Very few animals are usually kept
under this sytem (3-5) and the cattle is continuously housed in pens/kraals.

2.3 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ENTERIC FERMENTATION

Methane is produced in herbivores as a by-product of enteric fermentation (IPCC, 2006), a
digestive process by which carbohydrates are broken down by micro-organisms into simple
molecules for absorption into the bloodstream. The amount of methane that is released depends on
the type of digestive tract, age, and weight of the animal, and the quality and quantity of the feed
consumed (IPCC, 2006). Ruminant livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep) are major sources of methane and
estimates from one study showed that enteric fermentation accounts for about 80% of methane in
dairy cow production (Monteny et al., 2001).

The rumen is the most important part of methane production in ruminants like cattle, while
methane is mainly produced in the large intestines for monogastric animals like pigs. The rumen-
sourced methane is released through the mouth and nostrils by "eructation" (Lassey et al., 1997).

15
2.4 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
The term ‘manure’ is used here collectively to include both dung and urine (i.e. the solids and the
liquids) produced by livestock. The decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions (i.e., in
the absence of oxygen), during storage and treatment, produces methane (Pelster et al., 2016).
These conditions occur most readily when large numbers of animals are managed in a confined
area (e.g., dairy farms, beef feedlots, and swine and poultry farms), and where manure is disposed
of in liquid-based systems (VanderZaag et al., 2014).

The main factors affecting methane emissions are the amount of manure produced and the portion
of the manure that decomposes anaerobically (IPCC, 2006). The former depends on the rate of
waste production per animal and the number of animals, and the latter on how the manure is
managed. When manure is stored or treated as a liquid (e.g., in lagoons, ponds, tanks, or pits), it
decomposes anaerobically and can produce a significant quantity of methane (VanderZaag et al.,
2014). When manure is handled as a solid (e.g., in stacks or piles) or when it is deposited on
pastures and rangelands, it tends to decompose under more aerobic conditions and less methane is
produced (Pelster et al., 2016). The rate of methane production from manure is mainly determined
by temperature and storage time. (Chae et al., 2008; Alvarez et al., 2006).

2.5 IPCC GUIDELINES

The IPCC have developed guidelines (IPCC,1995b) to assist nations signatory to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change to compile their national greenhouse gas emission
inventories . These have been subsequently updated in 2000, 2003 and 2006. Where local data are
absent, these guidelines propose a "Tier 1" approach to ruminant methane based on default
emission factors. For cattle they depend upon regional characteristics, and in the case of dairy cows
also upon milk production.

The IPCC guidelines recommend a more detailed "Tier 2" formulation for cattle where the
emission is sufficiently prominent (Solomon et al., 2007) This formulation relates emissions
empirically to localised feed and herd characteristics. This study used this Tier 2 approach to carry
out the estimation of methane emissions produced.

16
2.6 MEASUREMENT OF METHANE EMISSION RATES
There are a number of methods that have been designed and used to measure greenhouse gases
from livestock (Brouček, 2014). Respiration chambers are the most commonly employed. The
chambers are enclosed units built with glass or polythene with a specified air inlet and outlet point.
Most designs are equipped an air pump to draw all air from the chamber to flow through a flow
meter and gas analysers (Brouček, 2014). The Methane emissions are calculated from flow and
concentration in the inlet and outlet air from the chamber. Chambers provide a relatively simple
measurement technique but they are expensive to set up and can only be used to measure emissions
from one or atmost two animals.

For the Sulphur hexafluoride technique (SF6 tracer), a SF6 permeation tube is placed into the
rumen of the animal (Lassey et al., 2001) and the calculation for CH4 emission is based on the
CH4:SF6 ratio of concentrations andthe specific pre-calibrated permeation emission rate of SF6.
SF6 is used because it has an extremely low detection limit, non-toxic and physiologically inert.
(Muñoz et al., 2012). This technique is also relatively expensive with the equipment required to
monitor the gas concentrations and requires skill to insert the permeation tube into the rumen of
the animal.

In some studies, scientists design hoods or small gas masks to capture the methane emissions from
the nostrils and mouth and direct them to gas analysers using tubes. All these methods have the
disadvantage of being intrusive; they disturb and disrupt the free movement and feeding of the
animals and the measurement set up can affect the mount of emissions (McGin, 2013).

The more advanced and non-intrusive techniques are the micrometeorological methods. These
essentially entail measurement of fluxes of gas emissions in the free atmosphere and relating these
fluxes to animal emissions. The methods are based on measurements of wind velocity and methane
concentration, but the number of measuring points and the theories used to calculate emission rates
differ between methods (Brouček, 2014). This category includes a wide variety of methods that
have been used in literature some of which are; the external tracer ratio technique where a tracer
gas is released in the kraal or barn, and the concentrations of tracer and methane gas are measured
in the surroundings (Harper et al., 2011). The technique of mass balance in animal buildings,
where the ventilation rate and gas concentrations at the inlet and outlet points are used to estimate
the emission. It is relatively easy to estimate emission rates from mechanically ventilated closed

17
buildings but with naturally-ventilated buildings, which are commonly used on animal farms, it is
difficult measure air exchange rates. (Derno et al., 2009).

Emission rates can be calculated by multiplying gas concentrations and ventilation rates (Ngwabie,
2014). The quality of emission data, therefore, depends on the accuracy and precision of the
measured concentrations and ventilation rates. The study was done on a naturally ventilated cattle
kraal and it employed this method. It is difficult to determine the ventilation rate in naturally
ventilated buildings because of the many air openings which can serve as both air inlets and outlets
depending on the wind direction.

2.7 ESTIMATION OF VENTILATION RATE

Traditionally, ventillation rates have been estimated using indirect methods which include,
carbondioxide, heat and moisture balance equations. For carbondioxide balance, the amount of
carbondioxide being produced by the animals is measured and the ventilation rate is calculated
from a mass balance of carbondioxide with the concentration in the inlet and the outlet air
(CIGR,2002). For heat and moisture balances, measurements of outdoor and indoor temperature
and relative humidity need to be made to calculate the ventilation rate on the basis of the heat and
moisture balances of the building. More advanced tecniques use the tracer gas method. It is based
on the conservation of mass of an inert tracer gas eg SF6 injected into a building section.

All these methods require measurement equipment (onsite-gas meters) and materials that are
expensive. In the study, ventillation rate was calculated using an empirical equation based on the
report (WHO,2011).

Ventilation rate (l/s) = 0.65×wind speed (m/s)×smallest opening area(m2) ×1000 l/m3 …(eqtn. 1)

18
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDY AREA
The study was carried out on a small cattle farm in Lunguja-Busega, Rubaga division in Kampala
with the coordinates Latitude: 0.30599 ; Longitude: 32.51866. The farm has 3cows that are a cross
between ankole and fresian breeds. They are mostly fed on elephant grass and forage legumes. The
farm also has a biogas digester to which much of the manure is added every morning and the relics
of the dung are piled on the outside edges of the kraal.

Figure 3.1: Map of kampala showing the five divisions of kampala city and the study area
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
To measure methane from enteric fermentation, the gases were collected from 4 different random
locations within the kraal an hour after their usual feed had been provided.
19
For methane emissions from manure management,4 manure samples from the stacked heaps at the
outer ends of the kraal were collected and tied in polythene bags for 1 hour to allow the gases
collect in the space above the polythene as specified by (Lleo et al., 2013).

3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

The gases were sampled from an uncontrolled environment and enclosure was only done to impede
the rapid escape of the gases being produced by the cattle.

 The animals were fed and then the kraal was fully enclosed with polythene, except for the
side with the feeding trough to allow the animals easy access to their feed and water.

 Two 4x8m tent coverings were also used to cover the large openings at the roof.

 Four samples of the manure (about 500g) were collected from the stacked heaps and tied
up in polythene bags. They were left for an hour for the gas to accumulate in the space
above the dung and then later sampled using two gas syringes.

a b

Figure 3.2: The farm (a), non-lactating cow (b)

20
 Figure 3.3:Enclosing the Kraal with polythene

 Air samples were collected from 4 different locations in the kraal using polythene bags.
The bags were injected with gas syringes to sample the gas.

Figure 3.4: Collecting air samples with gas syringes

21
 The gas collected was analysed using the gas meter Geotech model GA5000 that
measures with an accuracy of +/-0.5% after calibration for methane.

Figure 3.5 Analysing the gases

Data required for calculation

Table 3.1 presents the data collected to calculate the emission rates from each animal

Table 3.1: Data required for calculations

Data Values Source

Live weight 90kg, 432Kg, 395Kg (Johansson,2013)

Milk production for the 4litres per day The farm

lactating cow

Milk fat percentage 5.25% (Johansson,2013)

Age of the calf 6 months The farm

22
Mean daily weight gain for 0.308Kg (Johanson,2013)
the calf

Equations (IPCC,2006)

(i) Gross Cattle energy requirements GE (MJ day-1)

  NE  NE  NE  NE  NE   NE g  
 i p m work a  
  REM   REG  
    …(eqtn. 2)
GE   
 DE % 
 100 
 
 
Where DE % = Feed digestibility expressed as a percentage
(ii) Net energy needed for maintenance (MJ day-1)

NE m   weight
0.75 * cf  …(eqtn. 3)
 i 

Where weight is the live-weight of cattle, kg

𝑐𝑓𝒊 : A coefficient that will vary for each cattle type as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.2:Coefficient of maintenance

Cattle type 𝒄𝒇𝒊 (MJ day-1 kg-1)

lactating cattle 0.386
Non- lactating cattle 0.322
Bulls 0.370

Source: IPCC (2006)guidelines

(iii) Net energy required for activity to obtain feed (MJ day-1)

NEa  NE m * cf a …(eqtn. 4)

𝑐𝑓𝒂 = coefficient that corresponds to Cattle’s feeding situation as shown in the

Table 3.3

23
 Table 3.3: Coefficient that corresponds to the cattle;s feeding situation

Feeding situation Definition 𝒄𝒇𝒂

Cattle confined to a small place
Stall and no energy expended in 0.00
acquiring feed
Cattle confined in place with
adequate forage and little
Pasture 0.17
energy expended in acquiring
feed
Cattle graze in large open fields
Grazing large fields of hills and expend energy in 0.36
acquiring feed

Source: IPCC (2006) guidelines

(iv) Net energy for lactation (MJ day-1)

NE i  Milk * 1.47  0.40 * fat  …(eqtn.5)
Where Milk = Milk production per day, kg day-1
Fat = Milk fat content, % by weight

(v) Net energy required for pregnancy (MJ day-1)

NE p  cf p * NE m …(eqtn.6)

𝒄𝒇𝒑 : Pregnancy coefficient (0.10 for cattle)

(vi) Net energy needed for growth (MJ day-1)

0.75
 BW 
NEg  22.02 *   *WG1.097 …(eqtn.7)
 cf * MW 
Where;
BW: Average body weight of the cattle, kg
𝑐𝑓: A coefficient value; 0.8 for females – 0.8, bulls – 1.2 and castrates – 1.0 (NRC, 1996)
MW: Average body weight of an adult female in good body condition, kg

24
 WG: Mean daily weight gain of the cattle in the population, kg day-1
Adult cows were assumed to have net weight gain of 0 (IPCC, 2006)

(vii) Net energy needed for work (MJ day-1)

NE work  0.10* NE m* hours day …(eqtn.8)

(viii) Ratio of available net energy in a diet needed for maintenance to consumed
digestible energy (REM)
  25.4 
REM  1.123   4.092*10  3*DE%    1.126* 10  5* DE% 2     …(eqtn.9)
      DE% 

(ix) Ratio of available net energy in a diet for growth to digestible energy consumed

  

 37.4 
REG   1.164  5.160* 10  3*DE%  1.308* 10  5* DE% 2   
  DE% 
 … (eqtn 10)


Table 3.4 : Digestibility for different types of feed

Animal Feeding situation Digestibility (DE %)

Cattle fed on ˃ 90%
70 - 80%
concentrates
Cattle Cattle fed on low quality
55 – 75%
forage
Pasture fed cattle 45 – 55%

Source: IPCC (2006) guidelines

(x) Methane emission factor EF CH4

Y 
365 * GE *  m 
 100 
EF CH  … (eqtn.11)
4 55.65
Ym: Conversion factor, different according to the category
55.65: Represents energy content of methane (MJ kg CH4)

25
 Table 3.5 Methane conversion factor for different cattle categories

Category Ym
Feedlot fed cattle 3.0 % ± 1.0 %
Dairy cows and their calves 6.5 % ± 1.0 %
Cattle fed on low quality crops and by-
6.5 % ± 1.0 %
products
Grazing cattle 6.5 % ± 1.0 %

Source: IPCC (2006) guidelines

(xi) Total Enteric fermentati on emissions  Kg CH yr  1   EF CH * N
 4  4
…(eqtn.12)
N = Total cattle population (heads).

26
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 MEASUREMENT RESULTS

The gas metre gave the concentration of 5 different gases even though the study only required
that of methane (CH4). The concentration of the gases collected were displayed in percentages as
shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Gas meter display of the gas concentrations

Enteric fermentation Manure

Gas 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
CH4
0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Analysis using R software;

Analysis of Variance Table

Response: Methane

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq Fvalue Pr(>F)

Treatment 1 0.02 0.0200000 6 0.04983 *

Residuals 6 0.02 0.0033333

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

There were 4 replicates for both enteric fermentation and manure samples. There was a
significant difference (p = 0.05) between the enteric and manure concentrations. The average
concentration from enteric fermentation was 0.2% with a standard deviation of 0.071 and there
was no difference observed from the readings obtained for manur samples. The small differeence
observed for enteric fermentation might have been due to the spatial variations of methane
concentration inside the kraal. The concentration percentages were converted to mass per unit
volume using the standard formula; (ppm×molecular weight) ÷ (volume at standard temperature
and pressure). They were 1.33 × 10-3 Kgm-3 for enteric fermentation and 6.66 × 10-3 Kgm-3 for

27
manure. The methane emission rates were obtained using the method from (Ngwabie, 2014) as
86.638Kg CH4 yr-1 for enteric fermentation and 44.106Kg CH4 yr-1 for manure management.

44.106𝐾𝑔
The methane emissions factor measured from manure management ( =14.702 Kg CH4
3
head-1 yr-1) is much higher than that obtained by (Pelster et al., 2016) in Kenya. They measured
methane emissions from cattle excreta applied to open grasslands and obtained an emission
factor of 0.246 ± 0.0495 Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑−1 𝑦𝑟 −1 for fresian cows. This large discrepancy might
have been caused by the storage time of the manure. While in this study the dung samples were
obtained from heaps that had been stacked over time (more than 3months) , Pelster et al
measured the cumulative emissions on application to the grassland over a 28-day period.

There was a large uncertainity in the typical daily emissions measured as a result of the
measurement method. The gas samples were collected in an uncontrolled environment and even
with most of the openings closed, air coming from the feeding end might have altered the methane
concentration in the kraal and also caused escape of the methane being produced. There were also
uncertainities associated with estimating ventilation rate using only wind speed. Ventilation rates
in a naturally ventilated animal buildings are directly dependent on atmospheric conditions.
Meteorological instabilities make it difficult to accurately measure both the methane
concentrations and ventilation rate in the building.Seasonal and diurnal variations were also not
considered in these measurements and there is a possibility that sampling occurred during a period
of enhanced eructation (right after feeding).

4.2 CALCULATION RESULTS

Methane emission factors form enteric fermentation an manure management were calculated
using equations and their values were presensted in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 respectively.

Table 4.2: Enteric fermentation emision factors

Category Emission factor EF

Calf 90.295Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

Non-lactating cow 58.063Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

Lactating cow 92.257Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

28
 Total 240.60Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1

Table 4.3: Mnaure management emission factors

Category Emission factor EF

Calf 13.047Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

Non-lactating cow 8.389Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

Lactating cow 13.328Kg 𝐶𝐻4 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 −1 𝑦𝑟 −1

Total 34.764Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1

The emission factors are estimated as a percentage of the gross energy requirements for each
animal. The calf and lactating cow need more energy for growth and lactation respectively as
opposed to the non-lactating cow hence the hgher emission values calculated.

These values are slightly higher than of the emission factors obtained by (Mutebi, 2016) from the
cows in Nakasongola district under the free range system which were 61.1Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1 for
lactating cows and 38.1Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1 for non-lactating cows. Ideally, cattle in the free range
system have higher energy requirements related to movement to obtain food and therefore should
have higher calculated emission values. Variations in body weight and cattle species might have
caused this discrepancy. The cows in the previous study were of the ankole breed and had an
average body weight of 287kg while those in this study were a cross of fresian and ankole with an
average weight of 413.5kg.

The enteric emission factors calculated are close to those found in a recent study using country
specific cattle characteristics in South Africa (Moeletsi et al., 2017). They obtained a average
emissions factor of 99.4Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1 for the diary cows which is comparable to the value for the
lactating cow in this study. This might imply similarities in the feed and herd characteristics of
diary cows such in both regions.

29
4.3 MEASUREMENT VERSUS ESTIMATION
Table 4.4 represents a comparison between the values of methane emissions obtained from actual
farm level measurement and calculation using the IPCC methodology.

Table 4.4: Measurement versus estimation results

Measurement Estimation (calculation)

Enteric fermentation 86.368Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1 240.60Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1

Manure 44.106Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1 34.764Kg 𝐶𝐻4 𝑦𝑟 −1

In both measurement and estimation, methane emissions from manure are much lower than enteric
methane emissions; consistent with other studies (Jarvis et al., 1995; Mazzetto et al., 2014). Enteric
fermentation contributes up to 90% of the methand emissions from cattle (Kumari et al., 2016).
Also less methane emissions were produced from the manure because most of it is captured as
biogas and the remaining fraction is piled in dry heaps around the kraal where it mostly undergoes
aerobic digestion.

The IPCC calculated emission factor for enteric fermentation is atleast two times (×2.78) higher
than the measured value. This is consistent with the findings of (Pelster et al., 2016) even though
their study was only based on methane emissions from manure.

For the manure emissions, the measured rate was more than that calculated by a factor of 1.27.
this contradicts recent studies that have found that the IPCC estimates are invariably higher by a
factor of more than two (VanderZaag et al., 2014; Pester et al., 2016).

4.4 EXTRAPOLATION FOR KAMPALA

There are 61 zero grazing farms in Rubaga division with a total of 250 cows; 10 farms with 40
cows in the Cenral, 171 farms with 831 cows in Kawempe, 41 farms with 212 cows in Makindye,
then 40 farms with 180 cows in Nakawa division (Komakech et al., 2014). Therefore, the total
enteric methane emissions from the zero grazing farms in all the 5 divisions of Kampala were
43,558.26Kg CH4 yr-1 .

30
Different farms have different manure management practises that affect the rate and amount of
methane emissions from manure. For this farm almost (90%) all the dung is collected and taken to
the biogas plant daily, the relics are stacked in small heaps around the kraal. Methane emissions
from manure systems cannot be extrapolated for all the farms from this study

A study conducted in Uganda in 2007 quantified total methane emissions from cattle in Uganda
using the Livestock Analysis Model (LAM). The study estimated the current and projected amount
of methane produced by the cattle population in Uganda in the period from 2000 to 2030. They
estimated 337,796 tons for the year 2000 (Ejobi et al., 2007). The cattle enteriv methane emissions
from Kampala were about 0.013% of the total national cattle methane emissions estimated in the
year 2000. This value might have been very low because of the scope of the study; only enteric
fermentation results were extrapolated and manure systems in some parts of Kampala are likely to
increase the amount of methane emissions. There are also relatively fewer cattle kept in the city as
compared to other parts of the country like the cattle corridor (UBOS, 2008) so this value is not
indicative of the country;s methane contribution from cattle.

31
 CHAPTER 5.0 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
In this study methane emissions were measured and estimated from a zero garzing farm with three
cows. The emissions were measured at farm level and also estimated using the Tier 2 approach in
IPCC 2006 guidelines.

For enteric fermentation, air samples were collected using polythene bags and gas syringes from
the enclosed pen and the concentartion of methane gas was measured using a gas meter off-site.
For manure management, manure samples were collected and kept in polythene bags and the gas
that collected above was sampled using gas syringes.

The calculated emission rate for enteric fermentation was atleast more than twice (×2.78) that
obtained by farm level measurement. This means the methane emissions rate estimated by IPCC
methodology for the country are higher than the actual rate by a factor of 2.78. The reverse was
observed for manure emissions, the measured rate was more than that calculated by a factor of
1.27. This contradicted recent studies that found that the IPCC estimates are invariably higher by
a factor of more than two.

The methane emissions estimated for Kampala (43,558.26Kg CH4 yr-1 ). were very small in relation
to the national methane emissions estimate from the cattle population in 2000. This was attributed
to the fact that fewer animals are kept under the zero-grazing system in the area and the high
emissions estimated in 2000 were representative of the other areas in Uganda that keep large
numbers of animals and the free range system for cattle.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Emission measurements should be done with on-site gas analysers to minimise uncertainities
associated with collecting the gases and analysing in the lab. This arrangement will also make it
easy to measure ventilation rate using the carbondioxide balance equation.

Measurements should be done at different times of the day to cater for diurnal variations in
methane emissions and seasonal measurements should also be considered to show the sffect of

32
different climatic seasons on the amounts of methane produced. This study employed only a short
term emission measurement with the worst case scenario ie right after the animals had been fed,
to establish the factor of error associated with the IPCC inventory for methane emissions in the
country.

Farm level measurement of methane emissions should be done from an area with a largecattle
population, preferably areas within the cattle corridor. The emission rates from these areas will be
more indicative of the high methane emission rates stipulated for the country in literature.

33
 REFERENCES
Albihn, A. and Vinnerås, B. (2007). Biosecurity and arable use of manure and biowaste—
Treatment alternatives. Livestock Science, 112(3), pp. 232-239.

Alvarez, R., Villca, S. & Liden, G. (2006). Biogas production from llama and cow manure at
high altitude. Biomass & Bioenergy 30(1), 66-75.

Banadda, E., N., Kansiime, F., Kigobe, M., Kizza, M. & Nhapi, I. (2009). Landuse-based
nonpoint source pollution: a threat to water quality in Murchison Bay, Uganda. Water
Policy 11, Supplement 1, pp. 93–104.

Brouček, J. (2014). Methods of methane measurement in ruminants. Slovak Journal of Animal

Science 47(1), pp 51-60.

Chae, K.J., Jang, A., Yim, S.K. & Kim, I.S. (2008). The effects of digestion temperature and
temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of swine
manure. Bioresource Technology 99(1), 1-6.

Chandler,L.D.(2017). Explained: Greenhouse gases, MIT News office. Retrieved from

http://news.mit.edu/2017/explained-greenhouse-gases-0130.

CIGR (2002). Climatization of Animal Houses. Forth report of working group. Research Centre
Bygholm: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Crossona, P.,Shallob, L., O' Brien, D., Laniganc, D.J., Foleyd, P.A., Bolandd, T.M., and Kenny,
D.A. (2011). A review of whole farm systems models og greenhouse gas emissions from
beef and diary cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 166-167,
pp 29-45.

Derno, M., Elsner, H.G., Paetow, E. A., Scholze, H. And Schweigel, M. (2009). Technical note:
A new facility for continuousrespiration measurements in lactating cows. Journal of
Dairy Science, 92, (2009), pp. 2804-2808.

Ejobi, F., Kabasa, J.D., Oloya, J., Ebong, C., Kabirizi, J., Isabirye, P., and Livingston, R. (2007).
Methane emissions from the cattle population in Uganda. Joumal of Animal and
Veterinary Advances 6 (3): 399-403, 2007

FAO (2011). Rural structures in the tropics. Design and Development. Food and Agricultural
Organization. Rome. Italy.

34
Harper, L.A., Denmead, O.T. And Flesch, T. K. (2011). Micrometeorological techniques for
measurement of enteric greenhouse gas emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
vol 166-167, 2011, pp. 227-239.

IPCC (1995b). IPCC second assesement climate change. Intergovernmental panel on climate
change.

IPCC (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Agriculture, Forestry and
Other Land Use. Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. Intergovernmental
panel on climate change.

Jarvis, S.C., Lovell, R.D., and Panayides, R. (1995). Patterns of methane emission from excreta
of grazing animals. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, pp. 1581–1588. doi:10.1016/0038-
0717(95)00092-S

Jungbluth, T., Hartung, E., and Brose, G. (2001). Greenhouse gas emissions from animal houses
and manure stores. Nutrient Cycling In Agroecosystems. 60, pp. 133-145.

Kiggundu, M., Kabi, F., Mette, V., Nalubwama, S., and Odhong, C. (2014). Management and
use of diary cattle feed resources on small holder certified organic pineapple farms in
Central Uganda. journal of agriculture and environment for international development
108 (2), pp. 207-225. doi:10.12895/jaeid.20142.253

Kikoyo, D.A. and Nobert, J. (2016). Assessment of impact of climate change and adaptation
strategies on maize production in Uganda. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 93, pp. 37-
45.

Komakech, A.J., Banadda, N.E., Gebresenbet, G. and Vinnerås, B. (2014). Maps of animal urban
agriculture in Kampala City. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), pp. 493-500.

Komakech, A.J., Sundberg, C., Jönsson, H. and Vinnerås, B. (2015). Lifecycle assessment of
biodegradable waste treatment systems for sub-Saharan African cities. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling.,

Komakech, A.J., Zurbrügg, C., Miito, G.J., Wanyama, J. & Vinnerås, B. (2016). Environmental
impact from vermicomposting of organic waste in Kampala, Uganda. Journal of
Environmental Management, 181, pp. 395-402.

35
Kumari, S., Duhiya, R.S., Naik, S.N., Hiloidhari, M., Thakur I.S., Sharawat I., Kumari, N.
(2016). Projection of methane emissions from livestock through enteric fermentation: A
case study from India. Environmental Development, Vol 20, (Nov 2016), pp. 31-44.

Lassey, R.K., Ulyatt, M.J., Walker, C.F., Martin, R.J. and Shelton, D.I. (1997). Methane
emissions measured directly from grazing livestock in new zealand. Atmospheric
Environment 31(18), pp. 2905-2914.

Lassey, K., Walker, C., Mcmillan, A. And Ulyatt, M. (2001). The performance of SF6
permeation tubes used in determining methane emission from grazing livestock.
Chemosphere, 3 (2001), pp. 637-376.

Lleó, T., Albacete, E., Barrena, R., Font, X., Artola, A., Sanchez, A. (2013). Home and
vermicomposting as sustainable options for biowaste management. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol 47, (May 2013), pp. 70-76.

Lokupitiya, E. (2016). Country-specific emission factors for methane emission from enteric
fermentation : a case study from a non-annex 1 country. Journal of National Science
Founadtion of Sri Lanka 44(2), pp. 137-144.

MAAIF & UBOS (2009). THE NATIONAL LIVESTOCK CENSUS REPORT 2008. Ministry
of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), Entebbe/Uganda Bureau of
Statistics (UBOS), Kampala, Uganda.

Mazzetto, A.M., Barneze, A.S., Feigl, B.J., Van Groenigen, J.W., Oenema, O., and Cerri, C.C.
(2014). Temperature and moisture affect methane and nitrous oxide emission from
bovine manure patches in tropical conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 76, pp 242–248.

McGinn, S.M. (2013). Developments in micrometeorological methods for methane

measurements. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2013, pp. 386-393.

Moeletsi, M.E., Tongwane, M.I., and Tsubo, M. (2017). Enteric methane emissions estimate for
livestock in South Africa for 1990–2014. Atmosphere 8(5), 69;
doi:10.3390/atmos8050069.

Monteny, G.J., Groenestein, C.M. & Hilhorst, M.A. (2001). Interactions and coupling between
emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from animal husbandry. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 60(1/3), 123-132.

36
Mugisha, A., Kayiizi, V., Owiny, D., and Mburu, . (2014). Breeding Services and the factors
influencing their use on smallholder diary farms in central Uganda, Verterinary Medicine
International 2014, article ID 169380, 6pages.

Muhereza, I., Pritchard, D., Murray-Prior, R. (2014). Utilisation of cattle manure and inorganic
fertiliser for food production in central Uganda. Journal of Agriculture and Environment
for International Development - JAEID 108(2), pp. 135-151.

Mutebi, F. (2016). Estimation of methane emissions from the cattle sector in Nakasongola
district using GLEAM. Kampala. Department of agricultural engineering, Makerere
University

Muñoz, C.,Yan, T., Wills, D.A., Murray, S. and Gordon, A.W. (2012). Comparison of the sulfur
hexafluoride tracer andrespiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions
and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 95
(6) pp. 3139-3148.

Mwebaze, Sandra M.N. (1999). Fao Country Pasture / Forage Resource Profiles: Uganda.
http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/PDF files/SouthAfrica_English.pdf

Ngwabie, Martin. 2014. “Gas Emissions from Dairy Cow and Fattening Pig Buildings.”
University of Buea. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49913759.

O' Mara, F.P. 2011. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas
emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed Science And Technology 166-167,
pp 7-15.

Pelster, D.E., Gisore, B., Koske, J.K., Goopy, J., Korrir, D., Ruffino, M.C., and Butterbach-Bahl,
K. (2016). methane and nitrous oxide emissions from cattle excreta on an East A frican
grassland. Journal Of Enviromental Quality, 45, pp. 1531-1539, doi
10.2134/jeq2016.02.0050.

Ramanthan, V., and Feng, Y. (2009). Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global
and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment 43, pp:37-50.

Ritter, K.S. (2009). Global Warming And Climate Change- Cover Story- Chemical And
Engineering News, 1-7. Retrieved from http://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i5l/Global-
Warming-Climate-Change.html

37
Robinson, P.H., McAllister, T.A., Beauchemin, K.A., McGin, S.M., Xiying Hao. (2011).
Greenhouse gases in animal agriculture-Finding a balance between food production and
emissions. animal feed science and technology 166-167, pp1-6.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M.M.B., Miller, H.L. & Chen, Z.e.
(2007). Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Stark, J. (2011). Climate Change and Conflict in Uganda. The Cattle Corridor and Karamoja.
VanderZaaga, A.C., Flesch, T.K., Desjardins, R.L., Baldé, H. and Wright, T. (2014). Measuring
methane emissions from two dairy farms : Seasonal and manure-management effects.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 194, pp 259-267.
WHO. (2011). Natural Ventillation For Infection Control In Health Care Settings.

38