Gary Lanigan | Agricultural Greenhouse Gases – Emissions Intensity, Key Uncertainties and Mitigation

Agricultural Greenhouse Gases – Emissions Intensity, key uncertainties and Mitigation Dr. Gary J. Lanigan, Teagasc, Soils Environment & Land-Use Centre, Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland

B e Careful What You Wish For…….

Global & National Emissions
Agriculture comprises 13% of Global GHG Emissions (CH 4 & N 2 O)
Land-use, land-use change to forestry (LULUCF) contributes 15% (CO 2 & N 2 O)
Agriculture accounts for 30.4% of Irish national emissions (EU = 9%)

The Paradox: Emissions reduction and global demand
Emissions need to be reduced drastically – 50% -80%
World Population is set to increase from 7 billion (2011) to 8.9 billion by 2050
Rate of Global Demand for Agricultural products (52%) outstripping World Population Growth (35%)

Issues for Life-cycle analysis and assessing Emissions Intensity
Systems boundary: Is the analysis only up to the farm gate? Are upstream emissions (from input manufacture) and downstream emissions (from product processing included)? Meat production less sensitive to this issue as 85% of emissions are on-farm. Tillage is much more sensitive to upstream emissions – particularly fertiliser manufacture
Relevant emission factors: High degree of uncertainty associated with some EF’s (esp. N 2 O)
IPCC approach or full LCA: If IPCC rules are applied to C footprinting, the emissions associated with imported inputs (fertiliser, etc) do not count in the analysis. This can lead to skewed results – particularly when comparing extensive grazing vs. feedlot systems where concentrates may be imported.
Carbon sinks/source inclusion: Pastures can sequester considerable amounts of atmospheric CO 2 in the soil. So might on-farm pasture conversion to forestry. Alternatively, conversion of pasture to tillage for animal feed production is a source of CO 2 . Should these activities be included.
Allocation of emissions: There can be issues allocating emissions between products (eg: allocatting beef and dairy emissions to a dairy cow, or allocation of dairy emissions between different produce (butter, cream, etc).
Cross-compliance: Other Directives so GHGs should be Incorporated into a sustainability index:

Fertilizer Concentrates Other inputs Energy Soils Livestock Pasture Excreta U P S T R E M O N F A R M Milk Meat Processed products Processed products Down- stream Methane: Enteric Fermentation, Manure Management N2O: Manure Landspreading, Mineral fert., Pasture Excretion CO2 emissons : Fuel and liming CO2 uptake : Pasture Sequestration & C input from manure CO 2 Energy & transport N 2 O & CO 2 (Production & transport) Silage Manure management Housing Landspreading Fertilizer Concentrates Other inputs Energy Generated outside the State Farm gate analysis IPCC-based LCA Full LCA

A comparison of published analyses of GHG emissions from beef production systems (LCA and systems analysis) Crosson et al. 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Williams et al. (2006) - English national Williams et al. (2006) - English organic Williams et al. (2006) - English suckler Williams et al. (2006) - English lowland Williams et al. (2006) - English upland Pelletier et al. (2010) - American feedlot Pelletier et al. (2010) - American store to feedlot Pelletier et al. (2010) - American grass finished Peters et al. (2010) - Australia grass finished Peters et al. (2010) - Australia grain finished Beauchemin et al. (2010) - Canada crop/livestock Casey and Holden (2006c) - Ireland national Casey and Holden (2006d) - Ireland conventional Casey and Holden (2006d) - Ireland extensive Casey and Holden (2006d) - Ireland organic Cederberg and Stadig (2003) - Sweden Phetteplace et al. (2001) - American cow-calf Phetteplace et al. (2001) - American stocker Phetteplace et al. (2001) - American feedlot Phetteplace et al. (2001) - American cow-calf to feedlot White et al. (2010) - New Zealand lowland White et al. (2010) - New Zealand hill Veysset et al. (2010) - France cow-calf Veysset et al. (2010) - France cow-calf to beef Cederberg (2009) – Brazil beef Subak (1999) - African pasture Foley et al. (2010) - Ireland national Foley et al. (2010) - Ireland research farm GHG emissions (kg CO2e/kg carcass)

A comparison of published analyses of GHG emissions from milk production systems (LCA and systems analysis) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Williams et al. (2006) - England, conventional Williams et al. (2006) - England, high maize Williams et al. (2006) - England, split-calving Casey and Holden (2006b) - Ireland, average Casey and Holden (2005a) - Ireland, conventional Thomassen et al. (2008) - Netherlands organic Haas et al. (2001) - Germany extensive Basset-Mens et al. (2009) - New Zealand national Basset-Mens et al. (2009) - New Zealand intensive N Gerber et al. (2010) - Global average Gerber et al. (2010) - North America Lovett et al. (2006) - Ireland low genetic merit Lovett et al. (2006) - Ireland high genetic merit Lovett et al. (2006) - Ireland medium concentrate Lovett et al. (2008) - Ireland free draining soils Olesen et al. (2006) - European conventional Schils et al. (2005) - Netherlands grass/fert N Beukes et al. (2010) - New Zealand O'Brien et al. (2010) - Ireland high fertility O'Brien et al. (2010) - Ireland moderate stocking rate O'Brien et al. (2010) - Ireland high concentrate GHG emissions (kg CO2e/kg milk) Crosson et al. 2011

Composition of agricultural emissions
Livestock production: Methane from enteric fermentation/ manure management and N 2 O from soils comprise the majority of emissions
Pig/poultry production : Most emissions from manure management , indirect N 2 O and energy use
Tillage: Soil Carbon loss and N 2 O from fertiliser manufacture and application dominate

N 2 O (indirect) N 2 O (soils) Manure management Enteric Fermentation Kg CO 2 -eq kg -1 product System Beef IPCC boundaries O’Brien et al. 2010 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Grass Concentrate Dairy

Kg CO 2 -eq kg -1 product Dairy Beef Full LCA Foley et al. 2010 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Grass Concentrate 0 6 12 18 24 NFS Steer MSR Energy Concentrate production Fertiliser manufacture N 2 O (indirect) N 2 O (soils) Manure management Enteric Fermentation

LCA of Tillage Kg CO 2 -eq kg -1 product Absolute emissions: 3.2 tCO 2 ha -1 winter wheat 2.8 tCO 2 ha -1 spring barley Lanigan et al. 2011

LCA of Tillage including SOC loss Kg CO 2 -eq kg -1 product Absolute emissions: 5.8 tCO 2 ha -1 winter wheat 6.5 tCO 2 ha -1 spring barley Lanigan et al. 2011

Effect of C sequestration inclusion No sequestration With sequestration

Duration of slurry in tanks B o & MCF (15 – 30%) Key Uncertainties : Methane Dry matter intake (15-30%) Effect of breed/animal selection (unknown) Silage Manure management Housing Landspreading Soils Livestock Pasture Excreta

Key Uncertainties : N 2 O Soils Livestock Pasture Excreta EF 3 Leached & volatilised N Fertiliser EF 1 EF 4 & 5 Frac GRAZ F SN F AM EF uncertainty >100% Volatilised N Frac GASM N ex Silage Manure management Housing Landspreading

Key Uncertainties: C sequestration
Sequestration is decadal – makes measurement and verification difficult
Large variations in ecosystem C sink/source can occur
Unclear how long sequestration can last after management/land-use change
Only forestry has moved to Tier 2

Mitigation Strategies: What can we include in NIR currently?
Methane:
Strategies that affect animal intake or excretion
Li, Lanigan, Humphries 2011
N 2 O:
Measures that increase N efficiency and are reflected in reductions in S Fertiliser sales
Dietary changes that affect animal N excretion
SOC:
Land-use change to forestry
Land-use change from arable to grassland
Milk production (ton ha-1 yr-1) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 GG+FN GWC+FN GWC-FN G-B WC-B 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Measured Simulated Milk production N 2 O (kg N ha -1 yr -1 )

Improvements in genetic merit of animals
Duration of manure storage
Strategies that affect the N2O emission factors – shift of usage from Ammonium Nitrate to urea, nitrification inhibitors, strategies that reduce indirect emissions (leached N, ammonia)
Land management change (improved pastures, reduced tillage intensity, etc)
Mitigation Strategies: What can we NOT include in NIR currently?

Cross-compliance and stakeholder buy-in
Strategies must NOT result in perverse outcomes for other environmental measures
Nitrates Directive
Water Framework Directive
Habitats Directive
National Emissions Ceilings Directive
Animal Welfare
This may be difficult – reduced N2O may result in increased nirate leaching
Reductions in ammonia can result in INCREASED N 2 O
Need to develop weighted sustainability indices
Downstream:
Need to develop easy to use decision management tool for farmers
Eg. OVERSEER
Need to emphasise that increased efficiencies will reduce emissions Eg. N budgeting / maximum utilisation of on-farm N, targeted intensification allied to C-offsetting

Going Forward: Combining Research Efforts
National Platforms & Networks:
Agricultural GHG Platform (DEFRA, UK)
NZ Agricultural GHG Research Centre (MAFF, NZ)
GRACE-NET (USA)
Agricultural GHG Research Initiative-Ireland (DAFM, Ire)
European Networks:
ICOS
Joint Programming Initiative
FP7 Large Projects – GHGEurope, AnimalCHANGE, LegumesFUTURES
Global Networks:
Global Research Alliance
GCOS

Summary
In order to properly assess emissions intensity of agricultural produce – all upstream and downstream emissions must be included
In terms of livestock production, 80-90% of emissions are at the farm-gate – highest in pasture-based systems
Higher Tier emission factors MUST be included in national inventories to increase flexibility for mitigation strategies.
Constraining N 2 O and SOC factors are the most urgent
Require a mosaic of solutions – development of whole farm systems

Gary Lanigan | Agricultural Greenhouse Gases – Emissions Intensity, Key Uncertainties and Mitigation

by icarb

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 103

Statistics

Gary Lanigan | Agricultural Greenhouse Gases – Emissions Intensity, Key Uncertainties and Mitigation Presentation Transcript