Table 6.
Association between farmers’ perceptions of feedlots as a climate-smart approach to reduce enteric methane and feedlot locations (n = 161).
| Variables | Category | F1(%) | F2(%) | F3(%) | Total (%) | X2 | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Have you ever heard of methane? | No | 26(16.1) | 36(22.4) | 47(29.2) | 109(67.7) | 15.3 | 0.004∗ |
| Yes | 1(0.6) | 1(0.6) | 10(6.2) | 12(7.5) | |||
| Not sure | 1(0.6) | 16(9.9) | 23(14.3) | 40(24.8) | |||
| Total (%) | 28(17.4) | 53(32.9) | 80(49.7) | 161(100) | |||
| Are you aware of the impact of methane on our environment and livelihoods? | No | 2(3.8) | 9(17.3) | 20(38.5) | 31(59.6) | 8.7 | 0.07 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 9(17.3) | 10(19.2) | |||
| Not sure | 0(0) | 7(13.5) | 4(7.7) | 11(21.2) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| If yes, what impacts of methane on the environment are you aware of | Global warming | 0(0) | 0 | 2(3.8) | 2(3.8) | 6.5 | 0.59 |
| Droughts | 0(0) | 0 | 3(5.8) | 3(5.8) | |||
| Air pollution | 0(0) | 0 | 4(7.7) | 4(7.7) | |||
| All | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 2(3.8) | 3(5.8) | |||
| None | 2(3.8) | 16(30.8) | 22(42.3) | 40(76.9) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| Can cattle feedlots be considered climate-smart in reducing enteric methane emissions from animals | No | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 20(38.5) | 28(53.8) | 7.4 | 0.11 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 0(0) | 5(9.6) | 5(9.6) | |||
| Not sure | 1(1.9) | 10(19.2) | 8(15.4) | 19(36.5) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| What could be the reason for the reduction of enteric methane by the feedlots? | Because they are kept in a small place | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | 21.6 | 0.16 |
| Feed is already processed | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | |||
| The feed type is good | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | |||
| The cattle number remains the same | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | |||
| Poor feed quality | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | |||
| None | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 1(1.9) | |||
| Not sure | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 27(51.9) | 45(86.5) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| Using feedlots may help reduce enteric methane and improve weight gain. | No | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 19(36.5) | 27(51.9) | 3.9 | 0.42 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 3(5.8) | 8(15.4) | 11(21.2) | |||
| Not sure | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 6(11.5) | 14(26.9) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| Reducing methane output could decrease the chance of drought. | No | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 20(38.5) | 28(53.8) | 3.6 | 0.47 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 4(7.7) | 5(9.6) | |||
| Not sure | 1(1.9) | 9(17.3) | 9(17.3) | 19(36.5) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| Feeding concentrates in feedlots helps reduce methane output. | No | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 22(42.3) | 30(57.7) | 4.4 | 0.35 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 3(5.8) | 4(7.7) | |||
| Not sure | 1(1.9) | 9(17.3) | 8(15.4) | 18(34.6) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) | |||
| Sending or not sending cattle to the feedlot has no difference in weight gain. | No | 1(1.9) | 7(13.5) | 23(44.2) | 31(59.6) | 5.5 | 0.24 |
| Yes | 0(0) | 1(1.9) | 3(5.8) | 4(7.7) | |||
| Not sure | 1(1.9) | 9(17.3) | 7(13.5) | 17(32.7) | |||
| Total (%) | 2(3.8) | 17(32.7) | 33(63.5) | 52(100) |
Note: ∗Statistically significant at p < 0.05, X2: Chi-square, %: Percentage; F1: Raymond Mhlaba; F2: Mnquma; F3: Intsika Yethu; Total frequency at each feedlot location is highlighted in bold; In cases where percentages do not add to 100, the respondents were not required to answer subsequent questions if they did not know about methane.