Search

Purpose Different livestock production systems contribute to globally Greenhouse gas emission (GHG) emission differently. The aim of this paper is to understand variation in emission in different production systems and it is also important for developing mitigation interventions that work for a specific production system. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors used the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment interactive model (GLEAM-i) to estimate the GHG emission and emission intensity and tested the effectiveness of mitigation strategies from 180 farms under three production systems in northern Ethiopia, namely, pastoral, mixed and urban production systems. Findings Production systems varied in terms of herd composition, livestock productivity, livestock reproductive parameters and manure management systems, which resulted in difference in total GHG emission. Methane (82.77%) was the largest contributor followed by carbon dioxide (13.40%) and nitrous oxide (3.83%). While both total carbon dioxide and methane were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in urban production system than the other systems emission intensities of cow’s milk and goat and sheep’s meat were lower in urban systems. Improvement in feed, manure management and herd parameters resulted in reduction of total GHG emission by 30, 29 and 21% in pastoral, mixed and urban production systems, respectively. Originality/value This study is a first time comparison of the GHG emission production by various production systems in northern Ethiopia. Moreover, it uses the GLEAM-i program for the first time in the ex ante settings for measuring and comparing emissions as well as for developing mitigation scenarios. By doing so, it provides information on the various livestock production system properties that contribute to the increase or decrease in GHG emission and helps in developing guidelines for low emission livestock production systems.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the status of the open access (OA) movement on the African continent, and if there is any financial or moral exploitation by dominant “foreign” world powers. OA provided the African intellectual community with a tool to prove its academic prowess and an opportunity to display cultural and intellectual independence. OA publishing is prone to abuse, and some in Africa have sought to exploit the OA boom to profit from non-academic activity rather than use this tool to glorify Africa’s image and diversity on the global intellectual stage. These issues are explored in detail in the paper. Design/methodology/approach The authors broadly assessed literature that is related to the growth and challenges associated with OA, including the rise of OA mega journals, in Africa. Findings African OA journals and publishers have to compete with established non-African OA entities. Some are considered “predatory”, but this Jeffrey Beall-based classification may be erroneous. Publishing values that African OA publishers and journals aspire to should not equal those published by non-African publishing entities. Africa should seek solutions to the challenges on that continent via Africa-based OA platforms. The budding African OA movement is applauded, but it must be held as accountable as any other OA journal or publisher. Originality/value African scholars need to reassess the “published in Africa” OA image.