Article

Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry

Wageningen University and Research Centre, Agrotechnology and Food Innovations, Livestock Environment, P.O. Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands; Wageningen University and Research Centre, Department of Nutrition and Food, Animal Science Group, Lelystad, The Netherlands; Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon, UK
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 02/2006; DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.015
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Agriculture contributes significantly to the anthropogenic emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. In this paper, a review is presented of the agriculture related sources of methane and nitrous oxide, and of the main strategies for mitigation. The rumen is the most important source of methane production, especially in cattle husbandry. Less, but still substantial, amounts of methane are produced from cattle manures. In pig and poultry husbandry, most methane originates from manures. The main sources of nitrous oxide are: nitrogen fertilisers, land applied animal manure, and urine deposited by grazing animals. Most effective mitigation strategies for methane comprise a source approach, i.e. changing animals’ diets towards greater efficiencies. Methane emissions, however, can also be effectively reduced by optimal use of the gas produced from manures, e.g. for energy production. Frequent and complete manure removal from animal housing, combined with on-farm biogas production is an example of an integrated on-farm solution. Reduced fertiliser nitrogen input, optimal fertiliser form, adding nitrification inhibitors, land drainage management, and reduced land compaction by restricted grazing are the best ways to mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from farm land, whereas, management of bedding material and solid manure reduce nitrous oxide emissions from housing and storage. Other than for methane, mitigation measures for nitrous oxide interact with other important environmental issues, like reduction of nitrate leaching and ammonia emission. Mitigation strategies for reduction of the greenhouse gases should also minimize pollution swapping.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies on the sustainability of crop production systems should consider both the carbon (C) footprint and the crop yield. Knowledge is urgently needed to estimate the C cost of maize (Zea mays L.) production in a continuous monoculture or in rotation with a leguminous crop, the popular rotation system in North America. In this study, we used a 19-year field experiment with maize under different levels of synthetic N treatments in a continuous culture or rotation with forage legume (Alfalfa or red clover; Medicago sativa L./Trifolium pratense L.) or soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) to assess the sustainability of maize production systems by estimating total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kg CO2 eq ha−1) and the equivalent C cost of yield or C footprint (kg CO2 eq kg−1 grain). High N application increased both total GHG emissions and the C footprint across all the rotation systems. Compared to continuous maize monoculture (MM), maize following forage (alfalfa or red clover; FM) or grain (soybean; SM) legumes was estimated to generate greater total GHG emissions, however both FM and SM had a lower C footprint across all N levels due to increased productivity. When compared to MM treated with 100 kg N ha−1, maize treated with 100 kg N ha−1, following a forage legume resulted in a 5 % increase in total GHG emissions while reducing the C footprint by 17 %. Similarly, in 18 out of the 19-year period, maize treated with 100 kg N ha−1, following soybean (SM) had a minimal effect on total GHG emissions (1 %), but reduced the C footprint by 8 %. Compared to the conventional MM with the 200 kg N ha−1 treatment, FM with the 100 kg N ha−1 treatment had 40 % lower total GHG emissions and 46 % lower C footprint. Maize with 100 kg N ha−1 following soybean had a 42 % lower total GHG emissions and 41 % lower C footprint than MM treated with 200 kg N ha−1. Clearly, there was a trade-off among total GHG emissions, C footprint and yield, and yield and GHG emissions or C footprint not linearly related. Our data indicate that maize production with 100 kg N ha−1 in rotation with forage or grain legumes can maintain high productivity while reducing GHG emissions and the C footprint when compared to a continuous maize cropping system with 200 kg N ha−1.
    Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 01/2012; 94(1). · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasing milk production from pasture while increasing grass dry matter intake (GDMI) and lowering methane (CH(4)) emissions are key objectives of low-cost dairy production systems. It was hypothesized that offering swards of low herbage mass with increased digestibility leads to increased milk output. A grazing experiment was undertaken to investigate the effects of varying levels of HM on CH(4) emissions, GDMI and milk production of grazing dairy cows during the mid-season grazing period (June to July). Prior to the experiment, 46 Holstein-Friesian dairy cows (46 d in milk) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments (n=23) in a randomized block design. The 2 treatments consisted of 2 target pregrazing HM: 1,000 kg of dry matter (DM)/ha (low herbage mass, LHM) or 2,200 kg of DM/ha (high herbage mass, HHM). The experimental period lasted 2 mo from June 1 until July 31. Within the experimental period, there were 2 measurement periods, measurement 1 (M1) and measurement 2 (M2), where CH(4) emissions, GDMI, and milk production were measured. Mean herbage mass throughout the measurement periods was 1,075 kg of DM/ha and 1,993 kg of DM/ha for the LHM and HHM treatments, respectively. Grass quality in terms of organic matter digestibility was significantly higher for the LHM treatment in M2 (+12 g/kg of DM). In M1, the effect of herbage mass on grass quality was approaching significance in favor of the LHM treatment. Herbage mass did not significantly affect milk production during the measurement periods. Cows grazing the LHM swards had increased GDMI in M1 (+1.5 kg of DM) compared with cows grazing the HHM swards; no difference in GDMI was observed in M2. Grazing HHM swards increased CH(4) production per cow per day (+42 g), per kilogram of milk yield (+3.5 g/kg of milk), per kilogram of milk solids (+47 g/kg of milk solids), and per kilogram of GDMI (+3.1 g/kg of GDMI) in M2. Cows grazing the HHM swards lost a greater proportion of their gross energy intake as CH(4) during both measurement periods (+0.9% and +1% for M1 and M2, respectively). It was concluded that grazing LHM swards would increase grass quality with a concurrent reduction in CH(4) emissions.
    Journal of Dairy Science 10/2010; 93(10):4976-85. · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
6 Downloads
Available from
Jun 27, 2014