Technical mitigation options in dairy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Technical mitigation options in dairy

on

  • 7,092 views

Presented by Carolyn Opio at the Pilot project on the feasibility of generating carbon credit through dairy productivity gains Second Project Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 ...

Presented by Carolyn Opio at the Pilot project on the feasibility of generating carbon credit through dairy productivity gains Second Project Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 January 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,092
Views on SlideShare
1,033
Embed Views
6,059

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0

12 Embeds 6,059

http://www.ilri.org 4312
http://unjobs.org 1617
http://www.ilri.cgiar.org 74
http://ilri.org 24
http://feeds.feedburner.com 14
http://newsblur.com 4
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 4
http://192.156.137.114 3
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 3
http://dev.newsblur.com 2
http://172.27.1.33 1
http://ranksit.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Technical mitigation options in dairy Technical mitigation options in dairy Presentation Transcript

    • 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
    • Main sources of emissions in dairy 10.0 9.0 Post-farm, CO2 8.0 Direct & embeddedKg 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
    • 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
    • Enteric methane: entry points • Management practices • Animal health Dairy herd • Reproduction • Improved genetics • Increasing animal productivityEnteric CH4 Individual cow • Improved feed quality • Improved feed use efficiency • Improving rumen efficiency Rumen microbes rumen manipulation  feed additives (fats, oils)
    • 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
    • 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 treatmentKg 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
    • 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, animalhealth
    • 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
    • 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
    • Methane conversion factor: share of volatile solids convertedto CH4
    • Proportion of feed nitrogen retained in dairy75-95% of N ingested in feed is excreted
    • Manure N20 and CH4: entry points1. Changes to manure storage and handling techniques: solid, drylot, slurry, lagoons, etc2. 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
    • Relationship between productivity and N-excretion 10,000 4.00 9,000 3.50kg 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
    • 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
    • Mitigation in feed production, N2O andCO2  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
    • 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