Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
Brochure, flyer, fact-sheetThe adoption of Tier 2 methodology for enteric fermentation survey results (March 2021) 2021
Also available in:
No results found.In March 2021, FAO conducted a survey on the use of the Tier 2 methodology (as provided by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 10) for estimating methane emissions from enteric fermentation. Survey participants were members of the Transparency in agriculture and land use network. Results will feed into the design of an e-learning course to help countries boost their capacity on estimating enteric methane using the Tier 2 methodology. -
Book (stand-alone)Low-emissions development of the beef cattle sector in Argentina - Reducing enteric methane for food security and livelihoods 2017
Also available in:
This publication is intended to contribute to the implementation of the livestock and climate change development agenda. The study evaluates the potential for improving productivity while reducing enteric methane emission intensity from beef production systems in Argentina. The overall objective of this study is to support Argentina in identifying low-cost strategies to reduce enteric CH4 emissions while contributing to Argentina’s short-and long-term social and economic development and increasi ng resilience to climate change. -
Book (stand-alone)Options for low emission development in the Tanzania dairy sector - reducing enteric methane for food security and livelihoods 2019
Also available in:
No results found.Given the importance of the dairy sector to livelihoods and its potential role in poverty reduction, this study evaluates the potential for improving milk production while reducing enteric methane (CH4) emission intensity from dairy production in Tanzania. The study reveals that improved management practices and technologies can increase milk productivity while reducing methane emission intensity in both traditional and improved dairy systems. The economic analysis shows that in improved systems, all interventions assessed were cost-beneficial, however the analysis indicates that in traditional systems, both the baseline scenario and mitigation options present economic returns of less than 1. Although the economic analysis might not directly support the application of mitigation practices in traditional systems, the study does not exclude the importance of mitigation action focusing specifically on traditional systems since their existence and persistence is already threated by the effects of climatic variability and climate change. All the mitigation options analyzed in this study presented significant gains in productivity, which in practice can generate improvements in food and nutrition security, as well as boost farmers’ incomes. Moreover, some of the mitigation options can maintain and/or improve herd parameters, feed resources and water supply during and after climate shocks, supporting these systems to move from relief to resilience.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.