The farm-gate methane intensity and blue water footprint of nine diverse beef cattle breeds in South Africa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajas.v55i8.01Keywords:
farm size, large stock unit, live weight, simulation study, tier 2 emissionsAbstract
A simulation study was done to estimate the methane intensity and blue water footprint of a weaner calf production system in South Africa. Nine genotypes, representative of indigenous, British, Zebu, and European breeds, were chosen based on their relative numbers and the availability of data. A farm of 1200 ha with a carrying capacity of 6 ha/large stock unit (LSU), which could thus carry 200 LSU in total, was simulated. The enteric methane emission of an LSU was estimated to be 94 kg of methane/year (tier 2), implying that 18 800 kg of methane was produced per year by the farm (200 LSU × 94 kg of methane). Likewise, the litres of blue water consumed on the farm was 3285 kilolitres (200 LSU × 16 425 litres/year/LSU). The methane intensity (kg methane/kg live weight) was calculated by dividing the annual methane emissions of the farm by the total kilograms of live weight leaving the farm. The blue water footprint was estimated similarly. The total live weight leaving the farm was calculated by combining the total kilograms of saleable calves and the total kilograms of culled cows sold. The Afrikaner, Bonsmara, Angus, Brahman, and Brangus breeds had low methane intensities and blue water footprints, while the European breeds had high values. The methane intensity varied from 0.59 kg of methane to 0.85 kg of methane, a 44% difference. The water footprint varied from approximately 100 to 150 L/kg live weight leaving the farm. More research is needed to validate these differences.
(Submitted 17 September 2024; Accepted 2 June 2025; Published 18 August 2025)
References
Bennie, A.T.P. & Hensley, M., 2001. Maximizing precipitation utilization in dryland agriculture in South Africa – a review. Journal of Hydrology, 241:124–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00377-2
Brander, L., 2012. The economic value of ecosystem services from the terrestrial habitats of the Isle of Man. Report for the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, Isle of Man Government.
Cederberg, C. & Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8:350–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978508
Cederberg, C., Persson, U.M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., & Clift, R., 2011. Including carbon footprint emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environmental Science and Technology, 45:1773–1779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es103240z
Chapagain, A.K. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2004. Water footprint of nations. Volume 1: Main report. In: Value of Water Research Report Series, no. 16. UNESCO-IHE, The Netherlands.
Du Toit, C.J.L., Van Niekerk, W.A., & Meissner, H.H., 2013. Direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions of South African dairy and beef cattle. South African Journal of Animal Science, 43:320–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v43i3.7
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2016. U.S. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/ documents/2018_complete_report.pdf (accessed 1 October 2022).
Ferrell, C.L. & Jenkins, T.G., 1982. Efficiency of cows of different size and milk production potential. Rlhusmarc Germ Plasm Evaluation Report 10:12.
Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G., 2013. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy. [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf.
Grobler, S.M., Scholtz, M.M., & Pule, H.T., 2023. The blue water footprint of extensive beef production on semi-arid rangeland over a full production cycle in South Africa. Agricultural Sciences, 14:335–345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2023.143021
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
Jenkins, T.G. & Ferrel, C.L., 2002. Beef cow efficiency revisited. In: Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting (Vol. 34, pp. 32–43), Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Junior, U.J.R. & Dziedzic, M., 2021. The water footprint of beef cattle in the amazon region, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 51(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20190294
Meissner, H.H., Hofmeyr, H.S., Van Rensburg, W.J.J., & Pienaar, J.P., 1983. Classification of livestock for realistic prediction of substitution values in terms of a biologically defined Large Stock Unit. In: Technical Communication No. 175. Department of Agriculture, Pretoria.
Meissner, H.H., Scholtz, M.M., & Schönfeldt, H.C., 2012. The status, socio-economic and environmental impact, and challenges of livestock agriculture in South Africa. [Online]. Available: www.rmrdsa.co.za.
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal product. Ecosystems, 13:401–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8
Mokolobate, M.C., Scholtz, M.M., Neser, F.W.C., & Buchanan, G., 2015. Approximation of forage demands for lactating beef cows of different body weights and frame sizes using the Large Stock Unit. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development, 8:34–38.
Neser, F.W.C., 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.rpo.co.za/documents/pptrpo/proffrikkieneser.pdf
Peters, G.M., Wiedemann, S.G., Rowley, H.V., & Tucker, R.W., 2010. Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15:311–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x
Republic of South Africa (RSA), 2020. National GHG inventory report: South Africa: 2000–2017. In: Government Gazette No. 43706, September. Government Printers, Pretoria.
Ridoutt, B.G., Sanguansri, P., & Harper, G., 2011. Comparing carbon and water footprints for beef cattle production in Southern Australia. Sustainability, 3:2443–2455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su3122443
Roux, C.Z. & Scholtz, M.M., 1984. Breeding for optimal total life cycle production systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding. Pretoria, pp. 444–454
Scholtz, M.M, Neser, F.W.C., & Makgahlela, M.L., 2020. A balanced perspective on the importance of extensive ruminant production for human nutrition and livelihoods and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. South African Journal of Science, 116:8192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/8192
Scholtz, M.M., 2010. Beef Breeding in South Africa, 2nd Edition. Ed: Scholtz, M.M., Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria (ISBN-13: 978-1-86849-391-3).
Scholtz, M.M., Jordaan, F.J., Chabalala, N.T., Pyoos, G.M., Mamabolo, M.J., & Neser, F.W.C., 2023. A balanced perspective on the contribution of extensive ruminant production to greenhouse gas emissions in Southern Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 40:107–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/8192
Scholtz, M.M., van Ryssen, J.B.J., Meissner, H.H., & Laker, M.C., 2013. A South African perspective on livestock production in relation to greenhouse gases and water usage. South African Journal of Animal Science, 43:247–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v43i3.2
Scollan, N., Moran, D., Joong Kim, E., & Thomas, C., 2010. The environmental impact of meat production systems. In: Report to the International Meat Secretariat, 2 July 2010.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & De Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Wagner, J.J. & Engle, T.T., 2021. Invited review: Water consumption, and drinking behavior of beef cattle, and effects of water quality. Applied Animal Science, 37:418–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2021-02136
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 N.T. Chabalala, M.C. Chadyiwa-Mokolobate, M.J. Mamabolo, N.O. Mapholi, M.M. Scholtz (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
- Abstract 3108
- PDF 184
