The document discusses technical mitigation options for reducing carbon emissions in dairy production, focusing on areas such as enteric methane and manure management. It presents various strategies to enhance dairy productivity while lowering emissions, including improved animal health, genetics, and feed efficiency. The need for cost-effective implementation of these options and consideration of emission trade-offs is emphasized.

1. Technical mitigation options in dairy
Pilot project on the feasibility of generating
carbon credit through dairy productivity gains
Second Project Stakeholder Consultation
Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 January 2013
Carolyn Opio
FAO-Rome

2. Main sources of emissions in dairy
10.0
9.0
Post-farm, CO2
8.0
Direct & embedded
Kg CO2e/kg FPCM
7.0 energy, CO2
6.0 LUC - Soybean, CO2
5.0
Feed CO2
4.0
Feed N2O
3.0
2.0 Manure N2O
1.0
Manure CH4
0.0
NENA
World
SSA
W. Europe
E. Europe
Russian Fed.
LAC
E & SE Asia
Oceania
South Asia
Enteric CH4
N. America

3. Mitigation options
 Huge variation; significant potential to reduce emissions
 Key areas of intervention
 CH4 from enteric fermentation
 CH4 and N2O from manure management
 N2O (manure and synthetic N) from feed production
 CO2 from feed production, processing and transport

4. Enteric methane: entry points
• Management practices
• Animal health
Dairy herd • Reproduction
• Improved genetics
• Increasing animal productivity
Enteric CH4 Individual cow • Improved feed quality
• Improved feed use efficiency
• Improving rumen efficiency
Rumen microbes rumen manipulation
 feed additives (fats, oils)

5. Enteric CH4: improving animal productivity
0.60
0.50
Enteric methane/kg milk
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Milk /cow/day
Improved nutrition, reproductive performance, animal health, management, genetics
o reduces maintenance overhead associated with each unit of product
o fewer animals to produce same quantity of product

6. Enteric CH4: improving diet quality
10,000 40  Improved diet quality
9,000  Increase concentrate ratio in diet
35
8,000
 higher quality forages e.g. legumes, silage
30  feed processing
7,000
(grinding, chopping, chemical treatment
Kg milk per animal/year
25
6,000 e.g. urea) - digestibility
Percentage
5,000 20
 Grazing mgt to improve quality of
pastures, animal productivity
4,000
15
3,000
10
2,000
5
1,000 • improved feed digestibility
0 0 • Increase in DM intake and utilization
SSA
N. America
East Asia
Oceania
Russian Fed.
LAC
NENA
W. Europe
South Asia
E. Europe
• improved productivity
• reduced methane production per unit of
Average milk yield Share of concentrate in diet output

7. Enteric CH4 :improving feed use efficiency – global
Feed use for maintenance vs. productive functions
0.60
140
0.50 120
100
0.40
MJ.animal-1 year-1
Methane per kg milk
80
0.30
60
40
0.20
20
0.10
0
NENA
SSA
Oceania
LAC
East & SE Asia
South Asia
W. Europe
E. Europe
Russian Fed.
0.00 N. America
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
feed efficiency (kg milk/kg feed)
Maintenance Activity Pregnancy Milk production
 better nutrition, management, animal breeding, animal
health

8. Enteric CH4 : improving feed use efficiency
Kaptumo, kenya
0.14
methane per kg milk (kg/kg milk)
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Feed efficency (kg milk/kg dm)
 HH survey: 100 HHs
 mixed farming, semi-grazing and stall-fed
 milk production: 5-15 litres per day

9. Manure N20 and CH4 emissions
 N2O emissions
 N availability in manure
 Climatic conditions – soil type, temperature
 CH4 emissions
 Quantity of manure produced: animal numbers, feed intake and
digestibility
 Methane producing potential of manure
 Manure management system

10. Methane conversion factor: share of volatile solids converted
to CH4

11. Proportion of feed nitrogen retained in dairy
75-95% of N ingested in feed is excreted

12. Manure N20 and CH4: entry points
1. Changes to manure storage and handling techniques:
solid, drylot, slurry, lagoons, etc
2. Feeding practices that influence manure attributes (in turn
determine amount of N excreted and volatile solids that can be
converted to CH4)
 protein content of feed ration
 digestibility of feed
 feed conversion ratio – indicator of feed use efficiency

13. Relationship between productivity and N-excretion
10,000 4.00
9,000 3.50
kg milk per animal per year
8,000
Nex per kg milk protein
3.00
7,000
6,000 2.50
5,000 2.00
4,000 1.50
3,000
1.00
2,000
1,000 0.50
0 0.00
LAC
Oceania
NENA
SSA
East Asia
W. Europe
E. Europe
South Asia
Russian Fed.
N. America
Average milk yield kg of Nex per kg of milk protein
 higher milk levels decreases N excreted per kg milk output
o high feed digestibility, high feed conversion ratio

14. Mitigation of CH4 and N2O from manure
 Balanced feeding: N-adjusted feeding strategy inline with animal
requirements and physiological stage
 Manure management: Transitions between MMS alternatives can
reduce methane and N2O emissions; covering manure storage
 anaerobic digesters (biogas production)
 waste application: timing and application technique
 Benefits
 source of energy
 fertilizer
 environmental benefit: reduction in
leaching, odor, etc

15. Mitigation in feed production, N2O and
CO2
 improved pasture management and establishment
 optimizing stocking numbers
 rotational grazing
 fertilization
 improved pastures species and fodder banks
 Rangeland rehabilitation
 improved fertilizer use - organic and synthetic
 Precision agriculture to match N to crop demand, soil type, etc
 Timing of application – when required by crop

16. Conclusions
 Efficiency gains are important
o Reducing emissions per unit of animal product by cutting on “unproductive”
emissions through breeding, animal health, improved nutrition
 Implementation of mitigation options will depend on the cost-
effectiveness of technical options
 Need to pay attention to emission interactions and trade-offs between
different management strategies and emission types