Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/129018
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor李慧琳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorLee, Huey-Linen_US
dc.contributor.author陳方婕zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorChen, Fang-Chiehen_US
dc.creator陳方婕zh_TW
dc.creatorChen, Fang-Chiehen_US
dc.date2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-02T03:43:00Z-
dc.date.available2020-03-02T03:43:00Z-
dc.date.issued2020-03-02T03:43:00Z-
dc.identifierG0106266010en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/129018-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description應用經濟與社會發展英語碩士學位學程(IMES)zh_TW
dc.description106266010zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study is to find alternative rations to help the Indian cattle and buffalo sector reduce enteric methane emissions. We suggested a practical and low-cost method, in which the composition of rations used in 2010 was adjusted to attain emissions reductions. In this research, we analyzed enteric emissions and feed costs. We used the GLEAM-i model to calculate enteric emissions, which is based on the IPCC Tier 2 approach. The GHG calculations with the GLEAM-i model are detailed and comprehensive. Enteric emissions are associated with energy requirements. The energy requirements of cattle and buffalo are based on their live weight, gender, and function (to produce milk or meat or to provide labor). We identified 16 groups of bovines according to their different energy requirements. For each group, we imposed six scenarios of alternative rations that aimed to reduce enteric emissions. Among the six scenarios, the proportion of feed materials of higher digestibility is increased, thus replacing those of lower digestibility. Combining the mitigation potential and feed costs of the alternative rations, Scenario 6 presents the best choice, followed by Scenarios 5, 4, 3, 2, and then 1. Scenario 6 could attain a 1.5% reduction of enteric emissions (8.7 million t -eq/year) and a 13% reduction in the feed costs ($3,828 USD/year) from the 2010 benchmark. In the short term, Scenario 6 would be the best choice for India to cut enteric emissions without adding significant financial burden. The relatively more costly Scenarios 1–5 could be feasible when India achieves better economic viability.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsLists of tables II\nLists of figures VII\nAbbreviations VIII\nDefinitions of commonly used terms IX\nExecutive summary XI\n1 Introduction 1\n2 Background – GHG emissions by India 3\n2.1 Top countries around the world in terms of GHG emissions 3\n2.2 Agricultural GHG emissions in India 4\n2.3 Economy, beef production, and population in India 5\n2.4 Methane production 7\n3 Literature reviews 8\n4 GLEAM-i 11\n4.1 Introduction 11\n4.2 Overview and calculations of methane emissions 11\n4.3 Data 16\n5 Research design 21\n5.1 Research scope 21\n5.2 Data 21\n5.3 Scenario design 23\n6 Result analysis 28\n6.1 Dairy cattle 32\n6.2 Beef cattle 45\n6.3 Dairy buffalo 57\n6.4 Beef buffalo 69\n6.5 Differences between cohorts, systems, herds, and bovines 81\n7 Conclusions 90\nReferences 92\nAppendix A 94\nAppendix B 109\nTurnitin result 119zh_TW
dc.format.extent2257721 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106266010en_US
dc.subject黃牛zh_TW
dc.subject水牛zh_TW
dc.subject腸道甲烷排放量zh_TW
dc.subject印度zh_TW
dc.subject飼料配比zh_TW
dc.subjectGLEAM-izh_TW
dc.subjectCattleen_US
dc.subjectBuffaloen_US
dc.subjectEnteric emissionsen_US
dc.subjectFeed costsen_US
dc.subjectIndiaen_US
dc.subjectFeed compositionen_US
dc.subjectGLEAM-ien_US
dc.title印度養牛產業之腸道發酵甲烷排放減量潛力與成本分析zh_TW
dc.titleMitigation potential and costs of enteric methane emissions from Indian bovine sectoren_US
dc.typethesisen_US
dc.relation.reference1.Eggleston, H.S., Buenidia, L., Miwa, K., Nagara, T., & Tanabe, K. (eds). (2006). "IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Invertories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use." IPCC, Kanagawa: IGES.\n2.FAO. (2017). "Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model Version 2.0." Rome: FAO.\n3.FAOSTAT. (2019). FAO Statistical Database. Accessed 2019.\n4.FAOSTAT. (2020). FAO Statistical Database. Accessed 2020.\n5.GHG Platform India. (2017). "Trend analysis of GHG emissions in India from 2005 to 2013." Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://www.ghgplatform-india.org/Images/Publications/GHG%20Trend%20Analysis%20Report_2005-13.pdf\n6.IPCC. (2014). "Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report," working groups I, II and III. Geneva: IPCC.\n7.Martin, C., Morgavi, D.P., & Doreau, M. (2009). "Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale." Animal, 4:3, pp 351–365.\n8.Morgavi, D.P., Foragn, E., Martin, C., & Newbold, C.J. (2010). "Microbial ecosystem and methaneogenesis in ruminants." Animal 4:7, pp 1024–1036.\n9.MoSPI. (2018). "Press note on national accounts statistics back-series 2004–05 to 2011-12." Retrieved July 29, 2019, from http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/Press-Note-28Nov2018.pdf\n10.Oliver, J.G.J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J.A.H.W. (2016). ``Trends in global emissions: 2016 report.`` Ispra: JRC.\n11.O`Mara, F.P., Fitzergald, J.J., Murphy, J.J., & Rath, M. (1998). "The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows." Livestock Production Science 55, 79–87.\n12.Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T., & Henderson, B. (2013). "Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains – A global life cycle." Rome: FAO.\n13.Patra, A.K. (2014). "Trends and projected estimates of GHG emissions from Indian livestock in comparisons with GHG emissions from world and developing countries." Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 27, No.4: 592–599.\n14.Raghavendra, H.N. (2007). "An ayalysis of meat consumption pattern and its retailing: a case of Dharwad district." University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.\n15.Seetharam, A., Riley, K.W., & Harinarayana, G. (eds). (1986). "Small millets in global agriculture," IDRC. New Delhi: Pauls Press.\n16.Sere, C. & Steinfeld, H. (1996). "World livestock production systems: current status, issues and trends." Rome: FAO.\n17.Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C. (2006). "Livestock`s long shadow." Rome: FAO.\n18.USDA. (2016). "From where the buffalo roam: India`s beef exports." Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/37672/59707_ldpm-264-01.pdf\n19.USDA. (2018). "Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade." Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/73666448x/mg74qq69r/j6731729p/livestock_poultry.pdf\n20.WTTC. (2017). "How does travel & toursim compare to other sector?" Retrieved July 21, 2019, from https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/benchmark-reports/country-reports-2017/india.pdfzh_TW
dc.identifier.doi10.6814/NCCU202000300en_US
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
601001.pdf2.2 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.