Content uploaded by C.A. Rotz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by C.A. Rotz on Mar 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The 2015 Production, Management, and Environ-
ment symposium titled “Environmental Footprint of
Livestock Production – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Climate Change” was held at the Joint Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Animal Science
and American Dairy Science Association at the Rosen
Shingle Creek Resort in Orlando, FL, on July 15, 2015.
The symposium was organized by the Production,
Management, and Environment program committee
composed of Scott Radcliffe, Purdue University (com-
mittee chair); Trevor DeVries, University of Guelph;
Al Rotz, USDA-ARS, University Park, PA; Don Ely,
University of Kentucky; Phil Cardoso, University of
Illinois; and N. Andy Cole, USDA-ARS, Bushland,
TX (session chair). The purpose of the program was to
provide up-to-date information regarding the impact
of livestock production on greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change, potential mitigation strategies,
and methodologies to use in research. The symposium
comprised 5 invited presentations, 2 of which were
expanded to the manuscripts in this journal issue. Each
of the presentations is subsequently briey discussed.
The symposium began with a presentation by
Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California,
Davis, titled “Environmental footprint of livestock
production: A global perspective” (Mitloehner, 2015).
The presentation punctuated the differences in the car-
bon footprint of livestock production systems in de-
veloped and developing countries. These differences
are attributed, in large part, to the quantity of fossil
fuels used in transportation, energy, and other indus-
tries. Land-use change accounts for almost half of the
climate-change impact associated with livestock. This
impact is appreciably greater in developing countries
than in developed countries. Sustainable intensica-
tion in animal agriculture, coupled with technology
transfer from developed to developing countries, will
be needed to meet the growing demand for animal
protein while limiting its carbon footprint.
Dr. Richard Ulrich of the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville provided a thorough review of the Pig
Production Environmental Footprint Calculator
(http://www.pork.org/production-topics/environ-
mental-sustainability-efforts-pork-production/car-
bon-footprint-pork-production-calculator; accessed
26 July 2015; Ulrich et al., 2015). This model pro-
vides a detailed comparison of environmental im-
pacts of feeding practices, manure management, barn
management, and additives used in swine production.
This includes the use of digesters to recover energy
from manure via methane or by converting methane
to carbon dioxide. The model uses the NRC nutri-
tion equations to estimate feed intake and manure
production and an economic model to calculate the
dollar value of avoided greenhouse gas emissions.
The environmental impacts of different feed can be
evaluated per calorie or per gram of protein provided.
The multitude of methods that can be used to mea-
sure gas ux from animal systems were summarized
in the paper titled “Analytical methods for quantify-
ing greenhouse gas ux in animal production systems”
by Dr. Wendy Powers of Michigan State University,
East Lansing (Powers and Capelari, 2016). Methods
to measure uxes from individual animals (i.e., respi-
ration chambers, head boxes, and tracer gas), housing
systems (tracer, direct or indirect ventilation measures,
Production, Management, and Environment Symposium: Environmental foot-
print of livestock production – Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change1
N. Andy Cole,*2 S. Radcliff,† T. J. DeVries,‡ A. Rotz,§ D. G. Ely,# and F. Cardoso║
*USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, TX 79012; †Department of Animal
Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; ‡Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON, Canada N1G2W1; §USDA-ARS, University Park, PA 16802; #Department of Animal and Food Sciences,
University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546; and ║Department of Animal Science, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana 61801
© 2016 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2016.94
doi:10.2527/jas2016-0602
1A symposium held at the 2015 Joint Annual Meeting of ASAS
and ADSA, July 12–16, 2015, Orlando, FL., with publication
sponsored by the Journal of Animal Science and the American
Society of Animal Science.
2Corresponding author: nacole@suddenlink.net
Received May 3, 2016.
Accepted May 7, 2016.
Published July 14, 2016
Cole et al.
2
and micrometeorology methods), manure storage sys-
tems, and elds (chambers, tracers, and micrometeorol-
ogy) are discussed. Methods to accurately measure gas
concentrations and the strengths and weakness of each
method were also discussed. Factors such as the goal of
the research study, costs, required accuracy, time con-
straints, and other factors must be taken into account
when selecting the appropriate methods to use in mea-
suring gas uxes in animal facilities.
The effects of beef production systems on the en-
vironment were summarized by Dr. Galen Erickson of
the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in the presenta-
tion titled “Greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen
cycling from beef production systems: Effects of cli-
mate, season, production system, and diet” (Erickson
et al., 2015). The presentation noted that many of the
greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from cattle
operations are byproducts of microbial activity that
can be affected by environmental conditions such as
temperature and season. Factors such as forage quality
and diet composition affect enteric methane and pos-
sibly manure greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of
management strategies on daily methane production
and methane production per unit of energy intake may
vary. However, the greatest opportunity to decrease
methane production in the beef cattle sector is prob-
ably in forage-based systems.
The presentation by Dr. Karen Beauchemin of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge,
Alberta (Guyader et al., 2016), summarized our knowl-
edge on the use of forages to improve environmental
sustainability of ruminant production. The ruminant’s
ability to use forages, byproducts, and other feeds that
are of limited use to nonruminants makes them an im-
portant part of the solution to providing high-quality
protein to a growing world population. However, in
the process of digestion, ruminants emit greenhouse
gases, primarily methane, from enteric fermentation.
The proper management of forage systems can po-
tentially lessen the ruminant carbon footprint by de-
creasing nitrous oxide emissions via several mecha-
nisms including decreased use of synthetic fertilizers,
increased soil carbon storage, increased biodiversity,
and improved soil health. No single management
scheme will be the answer. A systems-based approach
will be needed to obtain the greatest net benet.
Environmental issues continue to grow as a con-
cern to livestock producers, regulators, and the gener-
al public. The excellent attendance at the symposium
demonstrates that this subject is of increasing interest
with animal science researchers as well. There are still
signicant gaps in knowledge. These gaps will have to
be lled with high-quality, multidisciplinary research.
LITERATURE CITED
Erickson, G. E., S. C. Fernando, T. J. Klopfenstein, A. K. Watson,
J. C. MacDonald, A. C. Pesta, A. L. Knoell, and H. Paz. 2015.
Greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen cycling from beef pro-
duction systems: Effects of climate, season, production system
and diet. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl. S3):865–866. (Abstr.)
Guyader, J., H. Janzen, R. Kroebel, and K. Beauchemin. 2016. Forage
utilization to improve environmental sustainability of ruminant
production. J. Anim. Sci. (in press). doi:10.2527/jas.2015-0141.
Mitloehner, F. M. 2015. Environmental footprint of livestock pro-
duction: A global perspective. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl. S3):865.
(Abstr.)
Powers, W., and M. Capelari. 2016. Analytical methods for quantifying
greenhouse gas ux in animal production systems. J. Anim. Sci.
(in press). doi:10.2527/jas.2015-0017
Ulrich, R., G. Thoma, J. Popp, and M. Hannigan. 2015. Environmental
impact reduction strategies for pig farms. J. Anim. Sci. 93(Suppl.
S3):865. (Abstr.)
