Although livestock production accounts for a sizeable share of global greenhouse gas emissions, numerous technical options have been identified to mitigate these emissions. In this review, a subset of these options, which have proven to be effective, are discussed. These include measures to reduce CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation by ruminants, the largest single emission source from the global livestock sector, and for reducing CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from manure. A unique feature of this review is the high level of attention given to interactions between mitigation options and productivity. Among the feed supplement options for lowering enteric emissions, dietary lipids, nitrates and ionophores are identified as the most effective. Forage quality, feed processing and precision feeding have the best prospects among the various available feed and feed management measures. With regard to manure, dietary measures that reduce the amount of N excreted (e.g. better matching of dietary protein to animal needs), shift N excretion from urine to faeces (e.g. tannin inclusion at low levels) and reduce the amount of fermentable organic matter excreted are recommended. Among the many 'end-of-pipe' measures available for manure management, approaches that capture and/or process CH 4 emissions during storage (e.g. anaerobic digestion, biofiltration, composting), as well as subsurface injection of manure, are among the most encouraging options flagged in this section of the review. The importance of a multiple gas perspective is critical when assessing mitigation potentials, because most of the options reviewed show strong interactions among sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper reviews current knowledge on potential pollution swapping, whereby the reduction of one GHG or emission source leads to unintended increases in another.

This review analyzes published data on manure management practices used to mitigate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from animal operations. Reducing excreted nitrogen (N) and degradable organic carbon (C) by diet manipulation to improve the balance of nutrient inputs with production is an effective practice to reduce CH4 and N2O emissions. Most CH4 is produced during manure storage; therefore, reducing storage time, lowering manure temperature by storing it outside during colder seasons, and capturing and combusting the CH4 produced during storage are effective practices to reduce CH4 emission. Anaerobic digestion with combustion of the gas produced is effective in reducing CH4 emission and organic C content of manure; this increases readily available C and N for microbial processes creating little CH4 and increased N2O emissions following land application. Nitrous oxide emission occurs following land application as a byproduct of nitrification and dentrification processes in the soil, but these processes may also occur in compost, biofilter materials, and permeable storage covers. These microbial processes depend on temperature, moisture content, availability of easily degradable organic C, and oxidation status of the environment, which make N2O emissions and mitigation results highly variable. Managing the fate of ammoniacal N is essential to the success of N2O and CH4 mitigation because ammonia is an important component in the cycling of N through manure, soil, crops, and animal feeds. Manure application techniques such as subsurface injection reduce ammonia and CH4 emissions but can result in increased N2O emissions. Injection works well when combined with anaerobic digestion and solids separation by improving infiltration. Additives such as urease and nitrification inhibitors that inhibit microbial processes have mixed results but are generally effective in controlling N2O emission from intensive grazing systems. Matching plant nutrient requirements with manure fertilization, managing grazing intensity, and using cover crops are effective practices to increase plant N uptake and reduce N2O emissions. Due to system interactions, mitigation practices that reduce emissions in one stage of the manure management process may increase emissions elsewhere, so mitigation practices must be evaluated at the whole farm level.

Management decisions both at the field and off-site have the potential to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate change threatens to increase the potential for soil erosion, reduce soil quality, lower agricultural productivity and negatively impact food security and global sustainability, making it one of the most severe challenges we will face in the 21st century. This paper looks at the potential of management to help us, not only mitigate climate change, but also to help us adapt to a changing climate. Different aspects of carbon management, nitrogen management, manure management, management in low-input systems (sustainable agriculture), and grazing land management are discussed as examples. Management decisions regarding conservation practices, such as no-till, conservation agriculture, and returning crop residue to the field to increase nutrient cycling, can contribute to carbon sequestration and help us mitigate and adapt to climate change. Additionally, management of grasslands, restoration of degraded/desertified lands, nitrogen management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, precision conservation management at a field and/or watershed level, and other management alternatives can also help us mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. Management for climate change mitigation and adaptation is key for environmental conservation, sustainability of cropping systems, soil and water quality, and food security. This paper suggests, based on a review of the literature, that management decisions that reduce soil erosion, increase carbon sequestration to improve soil functions, soil quality, and soil health, and contribute to the resilience of soils and cropping systems will be needed to respond to climate change and related challenges such as food security. Our review suggests that without management decisions that increase soil and water conservation, food security for the world's growing population will be harder to achieve.

No abstract

Loss of soil nutrients in runoff accelerates eutrophication of surface waters. This study evaluated P and N in surface runoff in relation to rainfall intensity and hydrology for two soils along a single hillslope. Experiments were initiated on 1- by 2-m plots at foot-slope (6%) and mid-slope (30%) positions within an alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)-orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) field. Rain simulations (2.9 and 7.0 cm h(-1)) were conducted under wet (spring) and dry (late-summer) conditions. Elevated, antecedent soil moisture at the foot-slope during the spring resulted in less rain required to generate runoff and greater runoff volumes, compared with runoff from the well-drained mid-slope in spring and at both landscape positions in late summer. Phosphorus in runoff was primarily in dissolved reactive form (DRP averaged 71% of total P), with DRP concentrations from the two soils corresponding with soil test P levels. Nitrogen in runoff was mainly nitrate (NO3-N averaged 77% of total N). Site hydrology, not chemistry, was primarily responsible for variations in mass N and P losses with landscape position. Larger runoff volumes from the foot-slope produced higher losses of total P (0.08 kg ha(-1)) and N (1.35 kg ha(-1)) than did runoff from the mid-slope (0.05 total P kg ha(-1); 0.48 kg N ha(-1)), particularly under wet, spring-time conditions. Nutrient losses were significantly greater under the high intensity rainfall due to larger runoff volumes. Results affirm the critical source area concept for both N and P: both nutrient availability and hydrology in combination control nutrient loss.

No abstract

Managing manure in reduced tillage and forage systems presents challenges, as incorporation by tillage is not compatible. Surface-applied manure that is not quickly incorporated into soil provides inefficient delivery of manure nutrients to crops due to environmental losses through ammonia (NH3) volatilization and nutrient losses in runoff, and serves as a major source of nuisance odors. An array of technologies now exist to facilitate the incorporation of liquid manures into soil with restricted or minor soil disturbance, some of which are new: shallow disk injection; chisel injection; aeration infiltration; pressure injection. Surface banding of manure inforages decreases NH3 emissions relative to surface broadcasting, as the canopy can decrease wind speed over the manure, but greater reductions can be achieved with manure injection. Soilaeration is intended to hasten manure infiltration, but its benefits are not consistent and may be related to factors such as soildrainage characteristics. Work remains to be done on refining its method of use and timing relative to manure application, which may improve its effectiveness. Placing manure under the soil surface efficiency by injection offers much promise to improve N use efficiency through less NH3 volatilization, reduced odors and decreased nutrient losses in runoff, relative to surface application. We identified significant gaps in our knowledge as manyof these technologies are relatively new, and this should help target future research efforts including environmental, agronomic, and economic assessments.

No abstract