Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Beef Cattle Farming through the Implementation of Animal Welfare Principles, as Part of Sustainable Rural Area Development


Encep Saefullah , Kenedi , Dedy Khaerudin






Vol. 10 No. 4 (2024): April


Animal Welfare, Beef Cattle Farming, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mitigation

Research Articles


How to Cite

Saefullah, E., Kenedi, K., & Khaerudin, D. (2024). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Beef Cattle Farming through the Implementation of Animal Welfare Principles, as Part of Sustainable Rural Area Development. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(4), 1468–1476.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


The beef cattle farming industry is facing a dual challenge - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change and the imperative to enhance the daily weight gain of cattle to meet growing global demand for meat. The integration of animal welfare principles stands out as a crucial and multifaceted solution that not only mitigates greenhouse gas emissions but also improves the daily weight gain of beef cattle. The results of this study indicate that the implementation of animal welfare guidelines plays a pivotal role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By providing cattle with appropriate nutrition, minimizing stress, and ensuring a healthy and stress-free environment, the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, can be significantly lowered. This approach is not just ecologically responsible; it is essential for meeting international climate commitments and preserving the health of the planet's ecosystems. In addition to its environmental benefits, the integration of animal welfare practices has a profound economic impact. Healthy and content cattle are more likely to exhibit efficient digestion and increased feed utilization, leading to higher daily weight gains. This directly improves the productivity and profitability of beef cattle farming operations. Furthermore, the production of higher-quality meat from well-cared-for animals can drive market demand and revenue, strengthening the industry's economic viability.


Ahirwar, R., & Tripathi, A. K. (2021). E-waste management: A review of recycling process, environmental and occupational health hazards, and potential solutions. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management, 15, 100409.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2022). Peternakan Dalam Angka 2022. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Blignaut, J., Meissner, H., Smith, H., & du Toit, L. (2022). An integrative bio-physical approach to determine the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sinks of a cow and her offspring in a beef cattle operation: A system dynamics approach. Agricultural Systems, 195(October 2021), 103286.

Chojnacka, K., Mikula, K., Izydorczyk, G., Skrzypczak, D., Witek-Krowiak, A., Gersz, A., Moustakas, K., Iwaniuk, J., Grzędzicki, M., & Korczyński, M. (2021). Innovative high digestibility protein feed materials reducing environmental impact through improved nitrogen-use efficiency in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management, 291, 112693.

Clinquart, A., Ellies-Oury, M. P., Hocquette, J. F., Guillier, L., Santé-Lhoutellier, V., & Prache, S. (2022). Review: On-farm and processing factors affecting bovine carcass and meat quality. Animal, 16, 100426.

Collins, L. M. (2018). Balanced and Unbalanced Reduced Factorial Designs (pp. 145–191).

Day, L., Cakebread, J. A., & Loveday, S. M. (2022). Food proteins from animals and plants: Differences in the nutritional and functional properties. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 119(June 2021), 428–442.

El-Naggar, A., Lee, S. S., Rinklebe, J., Farooq, M., Song, H., Sarmah, A. K., Zimmerman, A. R., Ahmad, M., Shaheen, S. M., & Ok, Y. S. (2019). Biochar application to low fertility soils: A review of current status, and future prospects. Geoderma, 337, 536–554.

Escribano, M., Horrillo, A., & Mesías, F. J. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration in organic dehesa livestock farms. Does technical-economic management matters? Journal of Cleaner Production, 372(August).

FAO. (2021). Emissions due to agriculture. Global, Regional and Country Trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No 18. Rome Cover. No.18, 7(1), 87–98. Retrieved from

FAWC. (2016). Sustainable agriculture and farm animal welfare. February, 19. Retrieved from

Firdausi, A., Susilawati., T., Nasich., M., & Kuswati. (2012). Pertambahan bobot badan harian sapi brahman. Jurnal Ternal Tropika, 13(1), 46–62. Retrieved from

Galioto, F., Paffarini, C., Chiorri, M., Torquati, B., & Cecchini, L. (2017). Economic, environmental, and animal welfare performance on livestock farms: Conceptual model and application to some case studies in Italy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(9).

Geyik, Ö., Hadjikakou, M., & Bryan, B. A. (2022). Climate-friendly and nutrition-sensitive interventions can close the global dietary nutrient gap while reducing GHG emissions. Nature Food, 4(1), 61–73.

González-Recio, O., López-Paredes, J., Ouatahar, L., Charfeddine, N., Ugarte, E., Alenda, R., & Jiménez-Montero, J. A. (2020). Mitigation of greenhouse gases in dairy cattle via genetic selection: 2. Incorporating methane emissions into the breeding goal. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(8), 7210–7221.

Gonzalez-Rivas, P. A., Chauhan, S. S., Ha, M., Fegan, N., Dunshea, F. R., & Warner, R. D. (2020). Effects of heat stress on animal physiology, metabolism, and meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 162, 108025.

Hsieh, F. Y., & Liu, A. A. (1990). Adequacy of sample size in health studies. Stanley Lemeshow, David W. Hosmer Jr., Janelle Klar and Stephen K. Lwanga published on behalf of WHO by Wiley, Chichester, 1990. No. of pages: xii + 233. Price:£D17.50. Statistics in Medicine, 9(11), 1382–1382.

IPCC. (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories. In National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Retrieved from

Kammann, C., Ippolito, J., Hagemann, N., Borchard, N., Luz, C. M., Estavillo, J. M., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Jeffery, S., Kern, J., Novak, J., Rasse, D., Saarnio, S., Schmidt, H.-P., Spokas, K., & Wrage-Monning, N. (2017). Biochar as A Tool To Reduce The Agricultural Greenhouse-Gas Burden – Knowns, Unknowns And Future Research Needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(2), 114–139.

Kementan. (2020). Buku Outlook Komoditas Peternakan Daging Sapi Tahun 2020. Pusat Data Dan Sistem Informasi Pertanian Sekretariat Jenderal Kementerian Pertanian, 1907–1507, 1–100.

Kenny, D. A., Fitzsimons, C., Waters, S. M., & McGee, M. (2018). Invited review: Improving feed efficiency of beef cattle – the current state of the art and future challenges. Animal, 12(9), 1815–1826.

Llonch, P., Haskell, M. J., Dewhurst, R. J., & Turner, S. P. (2017). Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal, 11(2), 274–284.

Mar, K. A., Unger, C., Walderdorff, L., & Butler, T. (2022). Beyond CO2 equivalence: The impacts of methane on climate, ecosystems, and health. Environmental Science & Policy, 134, 127–136.

McAllister, T. A., Stanford, K., Chaves, A. V., Evans, P. R., Eustaquio de Souza Figueiredo, E., & Ribeiro, G. (2020). Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems. In Animal Agriculture (pp. 75–98). Elsevier.

McCulloch, S. P. (2013). A Critique of FAWC’s Five Freedoms as a Framework for the Analysis of Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 959–975.

Moate, P. J., Deighton, M. H., Jacobs, J., Ribaux, B. E., Morris, G. L., Hannah, M. C., Mapleson, D., Islam, M. S., Wales, W. J., & Williams, S. R. O. (2020). Influence of proportion of wheat in a pasture-based diet on milk yield, methane emissions, methane yield, and ruminal protozoa of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(3), 2373–2386.

Munawaroh, I. S., & Widiawati, Y. (2017). Profil Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca dari Sapi Potong di 34 Provinsi Menggunakan Metode Tier-2. 2, 280–291.

Niloofar, P., Francis, D. P., Lazarova-Molnar, S., Vulpe, A., Vochin, M. C., Suciu, G., Balanescu, M., Anestis, V., & Bartzanas, T. (2021). Data-driven decision support in livestock farming for improved animal health, welfare and greenhouse gas emissions: Overview and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190(August), 106406.

OECD-FAO. (2022). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022-2031. Retrieved from

Oldfield, T. L., Sikirica, N., Mondini, C., López, G., Kuikman, P. J., & Holden, N. M. (2018). Biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend as options to recover nutrients and sequester carbon. Journal of Environmental Management, 218, 465–476.

Olijhoek, D. W., Løvendahl, P., Lassen, J., Hellwing, A. L. F., Höglund, J. K., Weisbjerg, M. R., Noel, S. J., McLean, F., Højberg, O., & Lund, P. (2018). Methane production, rumen fermentation, and diet digestibility of Holstein and Jersey dairy cows being divergent in residual feed intake and fed at 2 forage-to-concentrate ratios. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(11), 9926–9940.

Ouatahar, L., Bannink, A., Lanigan, G., & Amon, B. (2021). Modelling the effect of feeding management on greenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions in cattle farming systems. Science of the Total Environment, 776, 145932.

Place, S. E. (2018). Animal welfare and environmental issues. In Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare (pp. 69–89). Elsevier.

Romero, L. M., Platts, S. H., Schoech, S. J., Wada, H., Crespi, E., Martin, L. B., & Buck, C. L. (2015). Understanding stress in the healthy animal – potential paths for progress. Stress, 18(5), 491–497.

Samsonstuen, S., Åby, B. A., Crosson, P., Beauchemin, K. A., Bonesmo, H., & Aass, L. (2019). Farm scale modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from semi-intensive suckler cow beef production. Agricultural Systems, 176(September 2018), 102670.

Sinclair, M., Fryer, C., & Phillips, C. (2019). The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia. Animals, 9(4), 123.

Singh, A., & Rashid, M. (2017). Impact of animal waste on environment, its managemental strategies and treatment protocols to reduce environmental contamination. Veterinary Science Research Journal, 8(1 and 2), 1–12.

Smith, P., Reay, D., & Smith, J. (2021). Agricultural methane emissions and the potential formitigation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 379(2210), 20200451.

Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193–216.

van Gastelen, S., Antunes-Fernandes, E. C., Hettinga, K. A., Klop, G., Alferink, S. J. J., Hendriks, W. H., & Dijkstra, J. (2015). Enteric methane production, rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating Holstein-Friesian cows fed grass silage- or corn silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(3), 1915–1927.

van Selm, B., de Boer, I. J. M., Ledgard, S. F., & van Middelaar, C. E. (2021). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of New Zealand beef through better integration of dairy and beef production. Agricultural Systems, 186(November 2020), 102936.

Vechi, N. T., Mellqvist, J., & Scheutz, C. (2022). Quantification of methane emissions from cattle farms, using the tracer gas dispersion method. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 330, 107885.

Veissier, I. (2020). The Overall On-farm Animal Welfare Score. Welfare Quality, 1–2. Retrieved from

Widiawati, Y., Rofiq, M. N., & Tiesnamurti, B. (2016). Methane emission factors for enteric fermentation in beef cattle using IPCC Tier-2 method in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak Dan Veteriner, 21(2), 101.

Wrzecińska, M., Czerniawska-Piątkowska, E., & Kowalczyk, A. (2021). The impact of stress and selected environmental factors on cows’ reproduction. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 49(1), 318–323.

Author Biographies

Encep Saefullah, Universitas Bina Bangsa

Kenedi, Universitas Bina Bangsa, Serang, Indonesia

Dedy Khaerudin, Universitas Bina Bangsa


Copyright (c) 2024 Encep Saefullah, Kenedi, Dedy Khaerudin

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).