• Save
Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novel CH4 mitigation measures applied on livestock systems
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novel CH4 mitigation measures applied on livestock systems

on

  • 1,024 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,024
Views on SlideShare
259
Embed Views
765

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 765

http://redremedia.wordpress.com 765

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

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

    Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novel CH4 mitigation measures applied on livestock systems Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novel CH4 mitigation measures applied on livestock systems Presentation Transcript

    • Nitrogen co-benefits and trade-offs of novelCH4 mitigation measures applied on livestocksystemsDel Prado, A.1; Misselbrook T.2; Chadwick, D.R.2; Newbold C. J.3Email:agustin.delprado@bc3research.orghttp://www.land-ghg.net/BC3-Basque Centre For Climate Change (Spain)Rothamstead Res., North Wyke (UK)Institute of Rural Sciences, The University of Wales(UK)Study funded by(DEFRA-AC0209)
    • CONTEXThttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12895166
    • GHG-FOOTPRINT MILK/MEAT: MAIN SOURCES (PRE-FARM) energy Direct energy use: in farm, after farm Indirect energy use: to produce things that go to farmMain sources The ruminant and the methane (CH4) The waste and the methane (CH4) waste and other GHG (N2O) soil The soil and the carbon (sink or emission) The soil and the N2O
    • OTHER N LOSSES: NH3, N2, NOx, NO3 leachingFrom interactions: climate, soil types and Waste & soil managementClimate,Soil,management
    • MEASURES TO MECHANISM TO DIRECT SIDE-EFFECTS REDUCE CH4 REDUCE CH4 (POTENTIAL)Allicin (AL) antimicrobial Animal: palatability-,production- milk: nutritional-, organoleptic-essential antimicrobial Animal: palatability-,production-Oils (EO) milk: nutritional- + propionate andHSG butyrate Animal: NUE+ +energy that does not contribute to Animal: intake-, fibre digestib.-naked methanogenesis milk: PUFA+, fat-Oats-crudeProtein +energy that does(CP) not contribute to Animal: NUE++maize methanogenesis
    • STEPS FOR THE STUDY • Define baseline scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep • Run baseline scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep at the farm level • Data collection from mitigation methods (experimentalists) • Run mitigation scenarios for dairy, beef and sheep at the farm level Experiments + literature Changes in models Del Prado&Scholefield (2008); Del Prado et al (2010 Brown et al (2005)
    • WHAT WAS MEASURED? (ANIMAL LEVEL) CH4/animal Production and excreta no effect -10% AL -10% -10% dairy ?% EO Assumption: Beef = Sheep HSG -20% no effect -10% no effect -20% no effectNAKED OATS-CP/+MAIZE
    • WHAT WAS FROM LITERATURE & MODELLED?(ANIMAL,PLANT AL CH4/animal Production and excreta Plant EO modified per modified based on Kg DM intake Miller et al., 2001 (DMintake +, CPplant-) HSG dairy models models modelsNAKED OATS-CP/+MAIZE
    • SYSTEM TYPE AND LOCATIONS FOR FARM MODELLINGSector System county Location soil texture drainage classdairy intensive/indoors Wiltshire Warminster sandy loam gooddairy medium Lancashire Lancaster loam moderatedairy extended Leicestershire Leicester clay loam poorbeef lowland grazing-beef Devon Crediton loam moderatesheep lowland grazing-sheep Devon Crediton loam moderatebeef upland grazing-beef Clwyd Llangollen loam moderatesheep upland grazing-sheep Clwyd Llangollen loam moderate Dairy is based on ryegrass (grazed&cut) + maize Beef/sheep is based on raygrass/clover (grazed&cut)
    • MAIN ASSUMPTIONS FOR FARM MODELLING: DAIRY 1. Reseeding frequencyRyegrass= Reseeding frequencyHSG dairy 1. Maize grown on-farm 2. The measure DOES NOT apply to Followers dairy 3. CP intake was restricted by decreasing CP content in the concentrates and increasing the maize intake 4. Forage maize was increased about 50% in extended and medium dairy systems (not in fully housed, only concentrates)
    • MAIN ASSUMPTIONS FOR FARM MODELLING: OTHER beef Four scenarios were tested for HSG: (1) HSG1 4-6 years old <2 years old ( 2) HSG2 <2 years old 4-6 years old (3) HSG3 4-6 years old 4-6 years old (4) HSG4 4-6 years old 4-6 years old
    • RESULTS-DAIRY: % CHANGE IN LOSSES How many years of mitigation before the emissions due to land change/ grass renovation are compensated (C payback time)? (Vellinga&Hoving, 2011)
    • DAIRY: % CHANGE IN GHG LOSSES FOR EACH SYSTEM
    • DAIRY: % CHANGE IN OTHER LOSSES FOR EACH SYSTEM
    • SHEEP SYSTEMS TOTALS Allicin essential oil HSG1 HSG2 HSG3 HSG4 N2O kg N 0% 0% 21% 9% -4% 3% NO kg N 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NH3 kg N 0% 0% 12% 2% -7% 2% NO3 leaching kg N 0% 0% 7% 26% -1% -31% CH4 kg CH4 -20% -10% -18% -18% -18% -18% C storage kg C 0% 0% -100% -100% 0% 0% GHG kg CO2 eq. -11% -6% -1% -6% -12% -9%( 1) HSG1 4-6 years old >2 years old( 2) HSG2 4-6 years old >2 years old(3) HSG3 4-6 years old 4-6 years old(4) HSG4 4-6 years old 4-6 years old
    • CONCLUSIONS1. Overall GHG effectiveness depends on changes in grassland renovation time and land use change2. A shift towards more maize has associated - impact on N2O, NO3 leaching and NH3 and may require several years of C payback (if maize is changed from long term grassland).3. High sugar grasses (if renovation freq. time and clover/grass composition remains the same) are benefitial for all GHG and N losses.